Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2294 of 2010 Petitioner :- Janardan Swaroop Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Radhey Krishna Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Anurag Khanna Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the
Special C.J.M. Meerut, in Criminal Complaint No. 1833/9 of 2003, Modi
Rubber Limited Vs. Janardan Swaroop Agrawal, whereby an application for
dropping the proceedings u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected.
It appears that the revisionist was an employee in Modi Rubber Limited. He
was allotted a house. He retired on 31.7.1999 but did not vacate the house for
four years, therefore, a complaint was filed against him under the Companies
Act for punishing him u/s 630 of the Companies Act. During the continuation
of the proceedings an application was moved by the revisionist that the
cognizance was bad as he had retired on 31.7.1999 and the complaint was
filed on 17.9.2003.
Heard Mr. R. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for
the State, Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, and perused
the record.
It is apparent from section 630 of the Companies Act that if any officer or
employee of a company wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a
Company, or having any such property in his possession wrongfully
withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or
directed in the articles and authorised by this Act, he shall, on the complaint
of the company or any creditor or contributory hereof, be punishable with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees.
In the present case it is very much clear that even after four years of the
retirement the revisionist did not vacate the house. This prima-facie shows his
wrongful possession till the date when the complaint was filed and thus, it
cannot be said that the complaint was barred u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C.. The wrongful
possession would mean that wrongful possession every day till the house is
vacated. Therefore, there is no impropriety or illegality in the order impugned
in this revision.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
Pcl