ATUL MATHUR Vs. ATUL KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the High court has erred in law in setting aside the judgments of the courts below in a matter arising under S. 630 of the Companies Act in exercise of its powers under S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts are as under:

(3.) As respondent 1 failed to vacate the flat after resigning his post, the company filed a complaint against him under S. 630 of the Companies Act in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. The complaint was filed on behalf of the company by its power of attorney Mr. Atul Mathur who had been appointed as Divisional Sales Manager, Bombay in place of respondent 1 after his resignation. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took the complaint on file and after trial found respondent 1 guilty under S. 630 of the Companies Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and also directed him to deliver possession of the flat to the company on or before 15/06/1987 in default to suffer S. I. for three months. Against the said judgment, respondent 1 preferred an appeal to the Sessions court but by judgment dated 22/10/1986, the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay dismissed the appeal. The trial Magistrate as well as the appellate court concurrently held that the company was the licensee of the flat, that respondent 1 had acted only as the power of attorney of the company in entering into the agreement, that his occupation of the flat was only as an employee of the company and consequently respondent 1 was in unlawful occupation of the flat after he ceased to be an employee of the company. Respondent 1 was therefore directed to deliver possession of the flat to the company.