- (1.) ONKARESHWAR Bhatt, J. Both the revisionists have been convicted under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 9-2-2000. Both of them preferred appeals which was dismissed on 24-3-2001 by XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut with some modification. Hence both the revisions are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) HEARD Sri Kamal Kishor Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh and learned A. G. A. for the opposite parties. The revisionist Ramesh Datt Ojha was employed as Attendant in cutter machine in opposite party No. 2 Mill. His father was also an employer in Mill op posite party No. 2. His father was employed as clerk and his father was al lotted'quarter No. 36 B/1. His father retired on 31-5-1986 and ultimately died on 13-12-1988. The revisionist is in un authorised occupation of the quarter after the death of his father. The revisionist, Dina Nath, was employed in Mill opposite party No. 2 as Finisher. He was allotted Quarter No. L-11, Mehta Colony. On 26-1-1986 he resigned from service. There after he has not vacated the quarter and he is in unauthorised occupation thereof. The trial Court as well as the appel late Court found that the revisionist Ramesh Datt Ojha and Dina Nalh are in unauthorised occupation of the quarter in their possession. The trial Court held the revisionists guilty under Section 630 of the Companies Act. Both the revisionists were ordered to vacate the quarter and deliver the possession to opposite parly, failing which they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The revisionists were further sentenced to pay fine Rs. 100/- per month from 13-12-1988 and 27-1-1986 respectively. The appellate Court while maintaining conviction and sentence ordered that out of the fine Rs. 80/- per month will be paid to Mill op posite party No. 2 and Rs. 20/- will be paid to the State. Both the revisionists were ordered to vacate the quarter within a month. The revisionist Ramesh Datt has contended that since he continued living in the quarter allotted to his father and since maintenance allowance was given to him it should be presumed that the quarter was allotted to him. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have considered the evidence on record and has found that there is no written allotment order in favour of the revisionist and that his oc cupation of the quarter is unauthorised. Both the Courts have given reasons in arriving at that finding. The said finding cannot be said to be incorrect, illegal and improper. The contention of revisionist, Dina Nath is that he was forcibly made to sign a blank paper for his resignation. His contention did not find support by any evidence, as found by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have held that the occupation of the revisionist Dina Nath in the quarter is unauthorised. The above finding is based on the evidence on record and the same cannot be said to be incorrect, illegal and improper.
(3.) THE above findings that both the revisionists are in unauthorised occupa tion of the quarter in their possession calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The appellate Court in exercise of the powers given under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has dis tributed the amount of fine between both the opposite parties. Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to award com pensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. The exercise of power under the above section in awarding the compensation to opposite party No. 1 also is legal and calls tor no interference. It has been contended next that the amount of fine which can be imposed under Section 630 of the Com panies Act may extend to Rs. 1,000/- only and as such, sentence of fine imposed on the revisionists is not legal.;