CAP M GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. LEAFIN INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above criminal original petition is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in E.O.C.C. No 252 of 1993, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I., Egmore, Madras-8. THE petitioner, who is the accused in the abovesaid complaint, was the president of Leafin India Limited, Hyderabad. THE petitioner in his capacity as president was entitled to have a vehicle for his use and an air-conditioned Premier Padmini car, bearing Registration<AT> No.</AT> AP.9-T 6214, was given to him for his use. Now his services have been dispensed with. THE complainant- company issued a notice to him to hand over the said car, which was not complied with by the petitioner. Hence, invoking section 630 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), this petition has been filed to direct the petitioner to return the vehicle. THE petitioner in his petition to quash the proceedings has raised two contentions, viz., that he is not an employee as defined under the Act to initiate proceedings against him and that there is nothing in the complaint to show that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has jurisdiction to make enquiry of this petition and that, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is true that the designation of the petitioner is described as the president of the complainant-company. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the designation "president" cannot be equated with an employee of the company or officer of the company, that under section 630 of the Act, only an officer or an employee of the company can be called upon to comply with the directions given therein and that, therefore, this petition is not maintainable against the president of the company.In Satyanath (T. S.) v. J. Thomas and Company, the Calcutta High Court, while considering the term "officer" and " employee" has held that the term "officer" includes any director, etc., which implied that the terms used in the definition were only illustrative and not exhaustive. In that case, the word "adviser" was contended to be an employee and in that connection the Calcutta High Court has held that even a director is an officer of the company. THE president of the respondent-company also has assigned duties and, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not an officer of the respondent-company. For the president there must be duties and responsibilities while having the administration of the company and by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the word "officer" does not fit him in his capacity as the president of the respondent-company. THErefore, the first objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner falls to the ground. With regard to the next contention, viz., the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I find that nowhere in the petition is it stated where the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the telegrams and letters of the petitioner, in which he has admitted his liability to hand over the vehicle to the respondent-company. No doubt, his liability is admitted, but for invoking a provision, the court must have the jurisdiction and the place of cause of action must be specifically mentioned in the complaint, which alone will have to be taken into consideration for deciding the jurisdiction of the court. In this petition, as the place of jurisdiction is not mentioned the petitioner has every right to contend that in view of the absence of the materials in the complaint with regard to the place of cause of action, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, has no jurisdiction to try this case. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also refers to the place of trial, in the local jurisdiction of the court within whose jurisdiction, the offence was committed. THErefore, only if the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, this petition under section 630 of the Act is entertainable before him. Similarly for want of details with regard to the cause of action, now a doubt is created as to the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. THErefore, I feel that an opportunity may be given to the respondent-company to amend the complaint petition furnishing full details with regard to the place of cause of action.Mr. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would represent that instead of giving liberty to the respondent-company to amend the petition, the entire proceedings can be quashed giving liberty to the respondent-company to file a fresh complaint. Process has already been issued to the petitioner and if this proceeding is quashed, once again a fresh proceeding has to be initiated from the beginning. Instead of that, an opportunity may be given to the respondent-company to amend the petition. If that is not complied with by the respondent-company, the petitioner can very well knock at the doors of this court to quash the proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. THErefore, I feel it just and proper to permit the respondent-company to amend the petition before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. Subject to the observation that the respondent-company is to take out an application to amend the complaint, furnishing details of the place of jurisdiction within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the records from this court, for which the petitioner is at liberty to file his objections, if any, for this amendment, this criminal original petition is dismissed.