S N BELTHANGDY Vs. SATISH CHANDRA KATYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision application, the petitioner (original accused) has impugned the Judgement and order dated 27-9-1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, gr. Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 40/1990, whereby the Judgment and order dated 26-2-1990, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon bombay, in Criminal case no. 130/s/1989, convicting and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer SI for one month and to hand over the vacant possession of the flat, for an offence under Sec. 630 of the companies Act, has been confirmed.

(2.) IN short, the case of the complainant (respondent no. l) is that from 2-4-1951, till 31-10-1971, the petitioner was an employee of Consolidated Pneumatic tools Co. Ltd. (U. K.) From 1-11-1971, he became an employee of M/s. Consolidated Pneumatic Tools (I) Ltd, a subsidiary company of M/s Consolidated penumatic Tools Company (U. K.)In July, 1956, the petitioner was transferred from Calcutta branch to the Bombay branch. On his request, Flat No. 4, which was one of the four flats acquired by m/s Consolidated Pneumatic Tools Co. from Ms Kamala Nimbkar in the building known as Kamala Bhavan, 14th Road, Khar, Bombay, for accommodating officers of the company, was given to him for residence. The petitioner continued to reside in said flat thereafter. On 10-4-1975, he reached the age of superannuation, but requested the company that he be retained to look after the company's sales tax and allied matters on remuneration till April, 1978. The request was accepted by the company and he continued to be in service till 30-4-1978. After ceasing to remain in the company's services, from 1-5-1978, the petitioner did not vacate the flat in question. Consequently, the respondent No. 1 in his capacity of Secretary and Controller of the company, filed a Criminal. Complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act, against him. In due course, the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 resulted in the trial of the petitioner in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The trial court found the petitioner to be guilty for offence punishable under section 630 of companies Act and convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated in para 1. As observed, in the said para, the Appellate Court dismissed his appeal.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Majid Memon for the petitioner, Mr. V. V. Vashi for the respondent no. l and Mr. I. s. Thakur, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the re-spondent no. 2. I have also pesrued the impugned Judgments and the relevant exhibits referred to by the learned counsel for the parties in the course of their submission. After thoughtfully reflecting over the matter, I am satisfied that there is no merit in this revision and the same deserves to be dismissed. At the very outset, I may emphasise that I am seized of the matter in my revisional jurisdiction. It is well-settled that if there is a concurrent finding of fact, recorded by the two courts, this Court would only be justified to interfere with the same if it is manifestly perverse. Otherwise, the time-honoured view is, this Court only exercises its revisional jurisdiction if the impugned order suffers from illegality which has resulted in failure or miscarriage of justice.