KOMAL MANU SAHANI Vs. PURE DRINKS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration of the Court in this Petition is "whether on the death of accused, the proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 abate, or, the same can be continued by substituting him with his heirs -

(2.) The brief facts leading to the question are that the Petitioner is the daughter of one Mrs. Ranjit Charles Singh, the accused in C.C. No.353/SS/2011 filed by Respondent No.1/company under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short "the Act"), for continued unauthorized occupation of the residential premises owned by the company. The original accused expired on 30th January, 2012, after issuance of process by the Court against her. A few days prior to her death, the petitioner herein, her married daughter, came to the disputed premises for the purpose of looking after her. The petitioner, however, continued to occupy the premises even after the death of the mother. Therefore, on 2nd May, 2012, the company filed application at Exhibit3 to bring the petitioner on record as the accused in the case. That application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 5th November, 2012, which order is under challenge in the present Petition.

(3.) The order has been impugned essentially on three grounds. Firstly, that the application for substitution of the original accused filed by the company was not maintainable since there is no provision made in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, ("Cr.P.C." for short), or, the Companies Act, 1956, ("the Act" for short), for substitution of an accused. Secondly, that the proceedings based on the facts to prosecute the original accused cannot be used to prosecute the substituted accused i.e. the petitioner. And, thirdly, that, if at all anything, the company may file an independent complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 630 of the Act. The company, on the other hand, seeks to support the impugned order contending that the proceedings under Section 630 of the Act are not criminal proceedings in the strict sense of the term. On a broader interpretation placed on the provision, the same must be treated as quasi criminal proceedings and the interest of justice as well as the object of the provision can be served only by substitution of the original accused by the petitioner.