M K CHANDRAKANTH Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in STC. No. 340 of 1992, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for calling of the records in the abovesaid case and quash the same.

(2.) SHORT facts are : The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offence under section 630 (1) of the Companies Act. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. is manufacturing and selling scented betel-nuts called "asoka". Messrs. Shenthil Traders, in which the accused is a smaller Hindu undivided family, was appointed as a distributor for the sale of manufactured scented betel-nut powder and the products under the brand name of "asoka". By virtue of this appointment, the accused was the marketing director of Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. The accused did not look after Asoka Betel-nut and the produce business properly. He was using the funds of Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. for his own purposes. The accused was removed from the directorship on December 7, 1987. The accused is wrongfully withholding the property of the company. The accused was appointed as a distributor for Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. with effect from April 1, 1977, on terms mutually agreed on August 1, 1977. The company was requested to supply betel-nut to the accused as required by him from time to time and raise invoice for the same and the accused should make payment in accordance with the agreement. The accused had to pay various amounts which are given in detail in paragraph 14. The accused did not make payment towards any specific invoice but was making payment in lump sum from time to time. He has no right whatsoever to withhold the property of the company after having been removed from the directorship. Hence a direction should be given to the accused to deliver the properties cited at paragraph 14 of the complaint and punish him under section 630 (1) of the Companies Act.

(3.) MR. K. A. Panchapagesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that to make out an offence under section 630 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (which I shall hereinafter refer to as "the Act"), two ingredients are to exist :