GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED Vs. DUNDAYYA GURUSHIDDAIAH HIREMATH:GRACE L ELIZA:MOHADINSABAPPASABDESAI:BALU JEEVAPPA UPPARATTI:BANDU APPA AUNDHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leaves granted.

(2.) These five appeals are from as many similar orders of the High court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing the appellant company's criminal revision petitions impugning the respective orders passed by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak holding that the appellants' complaints against the respondents alleging offence under S. 630 (1 (b) of the Companies Act by not vacating the company's quarters as required by it even more than six months after retirement of the respondents, were barred by limitation and the same could not be taken into consideration.

(3.) Respondent 1 in each of these criminal appeals was appointed on august 1, 194 2/06/1945, November 24, 19 3/05/1939 and 23/01/1937, respectively, in the service of the appellant company and they retired on 14/03/1984, October 1, 198 3/02/198 4/10/1983 and 27/01/1981, respectively, from the appellant company's service, whereafter each of them was required to vacate his company's quarter. Each having declined to vacate the company quarter even more than six months after retirement, despite legal notice, the appellant company filed a private criminal complaint under Section 630 (1 (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 and S. 406 Indian Penal Code against each of them, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak and in each case, after inquiry framed charges for offences under S. 406 IPC and S. 630 (1 (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned Judicial magistrate, after prosecution had examined its witnesses, recorded the statements of all the accused under S. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and despite finding that the accused in each case was allotted a quarter by the company for his use and occupation and each had no authority to retain possession of the same after he retired, and that the cause of action in each case arose when the accused failed to deliver possession of the quarter to the company, held that the documents produced by the company did not disclose anything regarding the retirement of the accused from the service, but at the same time he recorded that during the course of evidence. PW 1 had deposed that each of the accused retired from service andimmediately after the retirement failed to redeliver possession of the company's quarter which attracted S. 630 (1 (b) of the Companies act and which was punishable only with fine and the complaint, therefore, ought to have been filed within six months from the date of retirement of the accused, and as the complaint was filed only during the year 1985 it was clearly barred by limitation, wherefore, the complaint could not be taken into consideration, and consequently, the accused was to be acquitted. The company's revision petition therefrom was dismissed by the High court holding that the view taken by the trial Magistrate was plausible and reasonable as the complaint was filed in each case beyond six months from the date of the alleged offence and that the question of limitation was concluded by a decision of the same High court in W. G. I. Cranes Ltd. v. G. G. Advani wherein it was held that the offence under section 630 (1 of the Companies Act was not a continuing offence and the decision of this court in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of Madhya pradesh would not be of any assistance to the petitioner.