BINODA DUTTA Vs. THENGAL BARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - 1.Heard Mr. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

(2.) This petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India isdirected against the Judgment and Order, dated 02.02.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,Sivasagar, in Crl. Appeal No. 13(2)/2014, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Charaideo at Sonari in C.R. Case No. 18/2012 against theaccused/petitioner, under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, whereby she was directed todeliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the tea garden quarter to the respondent Tea Company within a period of 1 (One) month and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) only, indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (Three) months.

(3.) The case of the respondent/complainant company as alleged in the complaint petition, precisely, is that the accused/petitioner is the wife of a deceased employee, namely Babul Dutta of thesaid respondent company. Late Babul Dutta was allotted with a garden quarter while working in thesaid company and he died on 03.09.2009. After his death, the petitioner was to vacate the quarterand hand over its posse-ssion to the respondent. The accused/petitioner initially prayed time for 6 (six)months to vacate the quarter and the company allowed the extension on humanitarian ground. However, as after elapse of the aforesaid period, the accused/petitioner did not vacate the quarter, theManager, Aideobari Tea Estate served a written notice to her, on 05.05.2011, asking her to vacate thequarter by 06.06.2011. After receiving the notice, the accused/petitioner expressed her inability tovacate the quarter. Hence, the respondent/company filed a complaint case under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and thereupon, C.R. Case No. 18/2012 was registered in the Court of learned SDJM, Charaideo at Sonari, Assam. After trial of the said case, the learned SDJM, Charaideo at Sonariconvicted and sentenced the accused/petitioner, as stated above, which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Crl. Appeal No. 13(2)/2014.