TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing his employment with the company. The petitioner accused, however, submitted his resignation in November, 1987. Thereafter, in pursuance of a decision of the chairman and managing director of the company the accused was appointed as a consultant of the company for the period from December 1, 1987, to March 31, 1988. One of the terms and conditions of the appointment was that the petitioner will get rent-free furnished residential accommodation and the accommodation will be used for consultancy work relating to the company's business. The petitioner was appointed as adviser to the company for the period from April 1,1988, to December 31,1988, and under the terms and conditions of that appointment also he was given rent free furnished residential accommodation. The accused, it is alleged in the petition of complaint, ceased to be in the employment of the company in any capacity whatsoever on and from January 1, 1989, but in spite of that the petitioner who was in possession of the premises situated at H-9, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, by virtue of the terms of his appointment as mentioned earlier, wrongfully withheld the same and knowingly applied it for purposes other than those exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posited with the appropriate authorities at Calcutta, the termination of the service of employment of the accused was being effected in Calcutta and the resolution of the board of directors of the company regarding the appointment and acceptance of the termination were accepted at Calcutta. Lastly, it is alleged that the refusal of the accused to part with the properties of the company was also communicated by the accused to the company in Calcutta and for all those reasons the court at Calcutta has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The petitioner/accused has challenged the proceeding started on the basis of the complaint mainly on the ground that the Calcutta court has no jurisdiction to try the case and since, for reasons discussed below, I find that the Calcutta court has no jurisdiction to try the case, I will dispose of the present revisional application on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the other grounds taken in the revisional application. Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, reads thus : " 630. Penalty for wrongful withholding of property. - (1) If any officer or employee of a company ( a ) wrongfully obtains possession of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the com plainant-company was that the petitioner was allowed by the company to reside in the disputed premises at Cochin filled with furniture and fixtures, initially in his capacity as managing director and subsequently as adviser to the company but on termination of the said employment admittedly the petitioner failed to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the company. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on consideration of the initial deposition and materials produced before him the complainant took cognizance of the offence under section 630(1)( b ) of the Companies Act, 1956, but refused to take cognizance of the offence alleged under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction, particularly territorial, for taking cognizance of the offence. The facts in that case were not much in dispute. What was in dispute was the inferences to be drawn from the basic facts as well as the interpretation of law. In connection with the question of territorial jurisdiction of the court the learned single judge at page 657 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty to the petitioner to reagitate these points after evidence has been adduced at the trial and, therefore, this case is no authority for determining the question of jurisdiction within the meaning of section 181(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I also full agree with the above view of the Bombay High Court and hold that the decision in Satyanath ( T. S. ) v. J . Thomas and Co. [1985] 57 Comp. Cas. 648 (Cal) does not lay down nor does it purport to lay down any principle of law intended to play the role of an authoritative pronouncement on the question of territorial jurisdiction of a court to try a case in similar circumstances. Section 4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt" with according to the provisions contained in the Code. Sub-section (2) of section 4 provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, drying, or otherwise deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, by its-own terms, applies only to an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust and not to any other offence. Therefore, the "account for" theory which is an attribute of section 181(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and is applicable for determining the venue of trial in respect of certain offences mentioned therein is not perforce applicable in determining the venue of trial of an offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act. The gist of the offence alleged against the petitioner is that he has wrongfully withheld the premises under his occupation even after his association with his employer company came to an end thereby attracting section 630(1)( b ) of the Companies Act. In this connection, the learned advocate for the opposite party argued that the expression "wrongfully withholds" as used in section 630(1)( b ) is very significant and connotes a meaning different from the sense of merely not parting with the possession of the property, He referred to the meaning of the word "withhold", as given in Webster's Tliird New International Dictionary which is "hold back". He developed the argument in this w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is complete when such retention takes place. It is at Jamshedpur, where the retention has taken place and it is but natural that the case be filed at Jamshedpur." Even apart from the above analysis of the Bombay High Court, I would have held and I do hold that where an offence is committed under section 650(1)( b ) of the Companies Act by reason of wrongful withholding of residential premises the offence is committed and the commission of the offence is complete at the situs of the premises and not at the head office of the company. Wrongful withholding of a property is committed under section 630(1)( b ) by not delivering the property to the person entitled to receive back the same or to some other person appointed or authorised by such person to receive the same on his behalf. Where the concerned property is immovable property under the occupation of a person, such person commits the offence of wrongfully withholding the same if he does not vacate the same on delivering possession thereof to the person entitled or authorised to receive the same. Such an act of delivering the immovable property to another person can be effected only at the place where the property is situa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he locale in respect of immovable property is the crux of the matter and delivery cannot be effective, nor can it be acceptable to the person entitled to receive possession thereof where such delivery is sought to be made only by sending a key or by sending a letter. Delivery of possession of immovable property, therefore, must take place at the locale where the property itself is situate and therefore the offence of wrongful withholding of any immovable property must take place at the situs of the property and not else where. That being so, in the present case the wrongful with holding of the premises in question must have taken place at Delhi and, therefore, the alleged offence under section 630(1)( b ), in the facts and circumstances of the present case must have been committed at Delhi. The other facts which have been pleaded on behalf of the opposite party that the letter of appointment of the petitioner was issued from the head office of the company at Calcutta or that his provident fund contributions are made at Calcutta or that the income-tax deductions are made at Calcutta, etc ., whether considered separately or cumulatively are of no consequence and relevance in determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
