K RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. THIRUMANI ASPHALTS AND FELTS (P) LIMITED, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C V MANIKANDAN, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Thirumani Asphalts and Felts (P) Limited, the respondent herein filed two complaints against K. Radhakrishnan in S.T.C.Nos.2470 and 30 11 of 1993 under Section 630 of the Companies Act praying for the conviction and return of the property belonging to the Company. After trial, in the year 1995, both the cases were ended in conviction. The petitioner was sentenced to pay fine and he was directed to return the properties to the Company. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred revisions in C.R.P.Nos.63 and 64 of 1995 before the Sessions Court and the same were dismissed. Hence, he filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.6150 and 9040 of 1998 and the same were dismissed on 12.5.1999.

(2.) Again, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.Nos.15288 and 15289 of 1999 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court. The said applications also were dismissed. In the meantime, the respondent filed execution petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.3538 and 3539 of 1999 in both the complaints praying for the execution of the orders passed by the trial Court earlier in the year 1993 in S.T.C.Nos.2470 and 3011 of 1993. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the said petitions were allowed giving a direction to the petitioner. Accordingly, in both the complaints, the Execution Court by the order dated 8.12.1999 directed the petitioner to hand over the motor vehicle and the records to the complainant within one week and in default, he would undergo R.I. for six months. Challenging the same, these two revisions have been filed.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending the applications filed by the respondent for execution in Crl.M.P.Nos.353 8 and 3539 of 1998 before the Execution Court, the petitioner filed a memo under Section 362 Cr.P.C. to review the matter in view of the fact that the order passed by the Civil Court in regard to the issue in question is in his favour and the same has been returned without consideration. It is also submitted that in the connected matter, this Court passed an order in Crl.R.C. No.33 of 1996 dated 19.6.1998 reported in 1998 Crl.L.J.3583 remanding the case after setting aside the dismissal order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. directing the trial Court to allow the parties to adduce evidence and decide the issue and that therefore, the petitioner need not comply with the order passed by the trial Court in S.T.C.Nos.2470 and 3011 of 1993 and consequently, the orders passed in the execution petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.3538 and 3539 of 1998 are illegal.