RAM KUMAR MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10-2-2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and sentenced for a fine of Rs. 300/-. Further, it was ordered that the petitioner shall hand over the possession of Quarter No. M-24 to the respondent company within a period of two months, in default of which he was to further undergo three months' S.I. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 10-12-2007.

(2.) Broadly speaking, the facts of the case are that a complaint came to be filed by respondent No. 2 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was averred in the complaint that the complainant is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is doing business of hotel. Further, it was mentioned that the complainant-company had taken on rent a premises from S.M.S. Corporation, situated at Narayan Singh Circle Jaipur, for its employees working in the hotel. It was also mentioned that the employees working with respondent No. 2 are provided accommodation facility and at the end of service, they are to hand over the same to the respondent hotel. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent company on 16-8-1972 as house man and was allotted quarter No. M-24. It is further stated in the complaint that on 30-7-1992, the petitioner had given a letter stating that the possession of the quarter had been taken by him. The services of the petitioner came to an end on 20-1-2000, when attained the age of 58 years. In this regard, the complainant respondent had issued a letter to the petitioner on 23-11-1999. It was also averred in the complaint that when service of the petitioner came to an end he was orally asked to evict the premises of the company. But the petitioner did not hand over the possession of the premises and, therefore, the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act was made out against him. Consequently, the instant complaint came to be filed by respondent No. 2.

(3.) On lodging of the complaint, the trial proceeded in respect of offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, wherein both the parties had led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Magistrate, by the order dated 10-2-2006, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforementioned. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate had issued directions in respect of eviction from the premises in question. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 10-12-2007. Hence, the present revision petition.