ABDUL QUAYAUM ANSARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a question in regard to the scope and ambit of section 630 of the Companies Act. It was held by this Court that the term officer or employee of a company as used in section 630 applies not only to the existing officers or employees but also to past officers or employees if such officer or employee either (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property, or (b) having obtained such property during the course of his employment, withholds the same after the termination of his employment. The Calcutta High Court disagreed with this view and held that it refers only to existing officers and employees of a company. It also held that the words any such property in section 630 (1) (b) relates to property specified in Clause (a), i. e. property of the company wrongfully taken possession of by a present officer or employee of the company. The Supreme Court in the case of (Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.) reported in A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 2245 disagreed with the view of the Calcutta High Court.

(2.) THE question that arises for determination in the present petition is an extension to the question that arose for consideration in the cases before the Calcutta High Court, this Court and the Supreme Court and the question is whether the term Officer or employee of a company in section 630 would include also the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased officer or employee of a company who continue to withhold the property of a company. The facts giving rise to this question are as follows :-

(3.) SHRI Moray, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on a proper construction of section 630 of the Companies Act, the heirs and legal representatives of an officer or employee or of a ex-officer or an ex-employee of a company cannot be included within the provisions of section 630 of the Companies Act. According to him, section 630 is a penal provision and a strict construction will have to be given to the said provisions. Section 630 provides for offences punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years. Hence, an extended meaning to the term officer or employee of a company, cannot justifiably be given in section 630 of the Companies Act. He further submitted that the present prosecutions barred by the Law of Limitation. He pointed out that the late Aziz A. Ansari had retired as far back as in April, 1974. The period of limitation for filing the insant complaint under section 468 (2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was three years. Hence the present complaint filed in the year 1988 was hopelessly time barred. Lastly he contended that there was a bona fide civil dispute pending in Suit No. 3491 of 1988 filed by the accused and it would be in the interest of justice that the present prosecution be stayed pending the disposal of the said suit.