EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD Vs. BIRENDRA NATH BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 24, 1997 passed by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1997 of that court under which he acquitted the accused appellant by reversing the judgment and order dated March 18 1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicting the accused under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarised as follows : M/s. Union of India Ltd., under which the respondent-accused, Birendra Nath Bhattacharjee, was employed as an officer brought a criminal case against the said respondent-accused before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), Alipore, on the allegations that the respondent was provided with residential accommodation in the first floor-flat of premises No. 766/1 Block "P", New Alipore, Calcutta, in respect of which the company-complainant was a tenant on payment of monthly rent on the fulfilment of different terms and conditions as stipulated under a written agreement. The accused respondent was allowed to occupy this flat as an officer of the company on the condition that he would restore the vacant possession of that flat in favour of the company immediately on his retirement. He retired on and from March 1, 1991, but he did not deliver the vacant possession of the flat in favour of the company, when the company was compelled to send a letter dated March 25, 1991, to him asking him to vacate the said flat in favour of the company at once. But the accused in violation of the terms and conditions of his service and also the statutory provisions of law continued to occupy the flat raising different wrongful pleas at different times. Under such circumstances, the company became constrained to lodge this complaint against him before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act.

(3.) The court took cognisance of the offence and issued summons against the accused whereupon he appeared before the court. When the court examined him under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stating the substance of the accusation against him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the trial commenced and the complainant-company examined its witnesses numbering six. They were cross-examined by the defence, but the defence examined only one witness, namely, PW-1. Besides oral evidence, the company also adduced documentary evidences. Sixteen documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The defence, however, produced two documents marked as exhibits "A and "B". Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After considering the materials on record and hearing the arguments of the learned advocates of both the sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed his judgment whereunder he found the accused guilty under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act and convicted him therein and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2000. The court also directed the convict to deliver up the flat in dispute in favour of the company within three months from the date of judgment, i.e., March 18, 1997.