Pratap Singh, J. - (1.) THE accused in S.T.C. 184/91 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, has filed his petition under S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same.
(2.) THE respondent has filed private complaint against the petitioner under S. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: M/s. Asoka Betelnut Company Private Limited Coimbatore was incorporated in 1976 under the Companies Act, 1956 (which I shall hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). The accused was the Marketing Director of the said company. In order to improve the business, the company had entrusted an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TMO 6090 to him. The accused used it as a Director of the Company. He was acting against the interest of the company. The company has filed two suits against him claiming huge amounts. Ultimately he was removed from Directorship on 7.12.87 as he was acting against the interest of the company. The aforesaid car was entrusted to him for his use as a Director. The R.C.Book stands in the name of the Company. Since he is no more a Director, he is bound to hand over the same to the company, Despite demands, he had not returned the car. The offence of withholding the property of the company is a continuing offence. He is possessing it wrongfully. Hence the complaint for direction to the accused to deliver the car along with the R.C.Book of the company within a time fixed by the court and for other reliefs. The accused, the petitioner herein, had resisted the claim on the following grounds: M.K. Krishna Chetty started the business in 1930. It flourished very well. After his sons became major, he gave the benefits to his sons and after he expired, the partnership was converted into a private limited company. All the cars were transferred in the name of the company. Only in such circumstances, the car TMO 6090 was registered in the name of the company, the accused is in control of the vehicle. The relationship between the brothers continued as before and the company was a joint family business. The accused had filed C.P.65/87 for mismanagement. It is pending. The son of the accused has filed C.S.27/89 and obtained an injunction restraining the brothers from alienating the immovable property. M.K. Kuppuraj called for an extraordinary meeting of the company on 2.11.87 in order to remove the accused from permanent directorship. The accused moved the court for an injunction. While it was pending, M.K. Kuppuraj removed the accused from the directorship. The accused has filed application for reinstatement as a Director and the application No.697/87 is pending. If the court so directs, he is prepared to return the vehicle.
(3.) THE petitioner who figures as P.W.1 had filed Exs.P1 to P10. The accused had not let any evidence. On the materials placed before him, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore has passed an order on 1.7.91 directing the accused to hand over the car with R.C.Book to the company within 15 days of the date of the order and has also indicated that in default, he is liable to be punished under S. 630(1) & (2) of the Act.;