MANOHAR GUNAJI ANUBHAWNE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE petitioner was tried in Cri. Case No. 148/s/1994 by the learned metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, who convicted him of the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. l. 000/- in default to suffer S. I: 15 days. The learned magistrate further directed the petitioner to vacate the premises of the respondent company within 3 months. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 145/2002 in the Sessions Court, mumbai but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the same and directed the petitioner to hand over premises to the respondent company on or before 31. 3. 2003. The petitioner has therefore, filed the present petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under s. 482 of the Cr. P. Code to challenge both these orders.

(2.) THE above mentioned complaint was filed by Ramanath Gorakhnath ghag, who was at the relevant time working as Security Officer in the bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. The said Company owns a residential building known as Spring Mills Chawls situated at G. D. Ambekar Marg, Naigaum, Mumbai. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner accused was in the employment of the said company as a worker from 12. 12. 1966 to 11. 10. 1988 and that as per the policy of the Company, he was allotted room No. 15 of Chawl No. 5 (E), G. D. Ambekar Marg, naigaum as an employee of the Company for his use and occupation till such time as he would be in employment of the Company. It appears that the Company used to charge certain amount towards maintenance charges. The petitioner resigned from the service on 11. 10. 1988 and therefore, he was bound to hand over possession of the said room but he did not do so inspite of the Company's letter dated 16. 12. 1988, calling upon him to vacate the said room. It was alleged that the petitioner continued to hold wrongful possession of the suit room and thereby, he committed an offence under s. 630 of the Companies Act. As pointed out above, the learned magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the appeal filed by the petitioner against that order came to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Shri Madhav Jamdar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Naphade, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mrs. S. R. Kumbhat, A. P. P. , for respondent No. 1 State. Shri Jamdar has assailed the impugned orders on the following -grounds, namely, (1) That the complaint is not filed by or in the name of the Company to whom the room in question belongs but it is filed by one of its employees and therefore, the same is not maintainable. (ii) That the petitioner's possession of the suit room is protected in view of the notifications dated 20. 3. 2001 and 20. 6. 2002 issued by the State government in exercise of its powers under s. 37 (1) of the Maharashtra regional and Town Planning Act,1966. (iii) The petitioner is a tenant of the room in question and that therefore, his possession thereof is protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rent act. The company has, therefore, to file a suit under s. 41 of the Presidency small Cause Courts Act, if it wants to take possession from the petitioner. (iv) The relief under s. 630 (2) of the Companies Act, is a discretionary relief and that both the Courts below have erred in directing the petitioner to vacate the room within a stipulated period. (v) That the provisions of s. 630 of the Companies Act being penal in nature, must be construed strictly. (vi) The Trial Court had wrongfully called upon the petitioner to admit certain documents and therefore, whole trial has been vitiated. It will be convenient to deal with each of these contentions serially, but before that a look at s. 630 would be advantageous. The section reads :