FOSECO INDIA LIMITED Vs. NAVNEET KUMAR DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 25-6-1994 passed by Shri A. C. Mohanty, Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1993 reversing the judgment dated 28-1-1993 passed by Shri R. K. Panda, J.M.F.C., Panposh in ICC No. 8 of 1992 in which respondent Navneet Kumar Dwivedi had been convicted under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 (One Thousand), in default to undergo S. I. for one month and further directing the respondent under sub-section (2) of Section 630 of the Act to vacate the house in question within two months from the date of the judgment, failing which he was directed to undergo S. I. for two months.

(2.) The appellant's case is as follows: Appellant FOSECO India Limited is a registered company under the Act with headquarters at Bombay, having a branch at Rourkela. Respondent was the Branch Manager of the Rourkela Branch and in that capacity was in occupation of a rented house bearing No. E/1 at Koel Nagar, Rourkela which was taken on lease by the company from the owner one S. K. Jain. There was an agreement (Ext. 2) between the owner of the house and the appellant-company executed on 30-4-1988 for a period of three years from 1-11-1987 to 31-10-1990 with the stipulation that the tenant would pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000.00 per month. According to the appellant, even though there was no fresh agreement between the parties after termination of the lease on 31-10-1990, the respondent continued to be in possession of the house taken on lease. The respondent's service was terminated on 14-8-1991, but he did not vacate the house in question even in spite of two notices served on him. Hence, according to the appellant, the respondent was in unauthorised occupation of the company's property. Hence criminal proceeding under Section 630 of the Act was initiated by the appellant and the trial Court found the respondent guilty and convicted him sentencing him to pay a fine as stated above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela who set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate and acquitted the respondent of the charge besides setting aside the direction to the respondent for vacating the house.

(3.) Shri S. K. Padhi, learned counsel for the appellant, and the respondent who appeared in person, were heard at length. Shri Padhi contended that the impugned judgment is illegal and is liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell into error in holding that the tenancy had expired and the house in question was not a property of the appellant. The respondent supported the impugned judgment.