T.N.V. Nanjappa Chettiar vs Devi Films (P.) Ltd.

Pratap Singh, J.—The accused in C. C. No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. I.), Madras, has

filed this petition u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and to quash the same.

The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner in C. C. No. 123 of 1991 for an offence u/s 630 of the Companies Act. The

allegations in it are briefly as follows :

The complainant is a private limited company. The accused was one of the directors of the company till January 2, 1984. He was provided with

residential accommodation at No. 16, Dr. Nair Road, T, Nagar, Madras, for his occupation and an Ambassador car bearing Registration No.

TMU 1085 by virtue of his being one of the directors of the company. He was removed from directorship of the company on January 2, 1984. On

his ceasing to be a director of the company, he ought to have delivered possession of the house and car mentioned supra. Despite repeated

demands, he had not delivered possession of the same. lie had ceased to be an officer of the company from January 2, 1984. He is wrongly

withholding the properties of the company and has thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 630 of the Companies Act. It is a continuing

offence. The offence is being committed till such tiine as the accused delivered possession of the property belonging to the company. Hence the

complaint.

Mr. K. N. Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the penalty for the offence u/s 630 of the Companies Act is

only fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 and, by virtue of section 468(2)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, the period of limitation for such offence is

only six months. He would add that as per the complaint, the petitioner was removed from the directorship on January 2, 1984, and after that date,

he was not a director of the company and six months had elapsed since January 2, 1984, and hence the complaint is liable to be quashed on the

ground of limitation.

In Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani Vs. Achyut Kashinath Wagh and another, a single judge of the Bombay High Court had held that clause (b) of

section 630 deals with wrongful withholding of possession by both a past and present employee. is view was apprved by the Supreme Court in

Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. [1987] 3 Comp LJ 57; [1988] 63 Comp Cas 1, Though the beneficent provision

contained in section 630 is penal, it has been purposely enacted by the Legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving

the property of the company, (a) where an officer or employee of a company wrongfully withholds possession of property of the company, or (b)

where, having been placed in possession of any such property during the course of his employment, wrongfully with-holds possession of it after the

termination of his employment. It is the duty of the court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provision in furtherance of the obsect and

purpose of the legislation which Would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

So, I am clear that the question of limitation does not arise in this case, since it is a continuing offence so long as withholding continues. No other

ground was urged before me.

In view of the above, the petition does not deserve admission and is dismissed.