CHANDRASINH JAISINH MAHIDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the complainant Reliance Machine ., is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). The petitioner herein (original accused) was employed as a welder in the said company. During the course of his employment the petitioner had been given a quarter being C -5/65 in the G.I.D.C., Umergaon area, for residential purpose which was required to be handed back upon his service coming to an end. The petitioner services came to be terminated on April 13, 1984, whereupon he was asked to hand over the possession of the said premises. However, he continued his possession. From time to time request was made to hand over possession, however he had illegally continued his possession. By an award dated June 27, 1988, the labour court upheld the termination of the petitioner's service as legal and valid. The continuation of possession of the premises from April 13, 1984, being an offence punishable under Section 630(1) of the Act, a complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner under Section 630(1) and (2) of the Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umergaon, being Criminal Case No. 2342 of 1988. It appears that the petitioner has filed a civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 40 of 1985 before the court of competent jurisdiction at Umergaon, claiming to be a tenant of the said premises. However, the said civil suit came to be dismissed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was pending before the District Court.

(2.) BY a judgment and order dated May 7, 1991, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 630(1) of the Act and accordingly sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. The learned Judicial Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 630(2) of the Act also directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises in question to respondent No. 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the order, that is, on or before June 15,1991 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. A.Y. Kogje, learned additional public prosecutor for respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat and Mr. Nilesh Shah, learned advocate for Mrs. D.T. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No. 2.