- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Supplementary-affidavit filed by revisionist pursuant to order of the Court dated 9.7.2013 be kept on file. Challenge in this revision is to the judgment and order dated 2.6.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut in Criminal appeal No. 408 of 2010 whereby the conviction of the revisionist under Section 630 of The Companies Act and sentence awarded to him by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No. 1833/03 dated 22.10.2010 had been confirmed. The main argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned appellate Court has not considered the order of the then Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Modi Rubber Limited, Modinagar dated 3.5.1985 whereby it was directed that the employees of the company including the opposite party No. 2 may reside in Modinagar permanently and no employee would be evicted from the house allotted to him and the value of the house would be deducted from his final payment (including provident fund with his consent). It was further directed that the order will be applicable for all the units of Modi Enterprises having houses in Modinagar. All the officials of the group were directed to adhere with the order and ensure that none of the employee will vacate the house in future and officials will be held responsible for any lapse. On the basis of this order dated 3.5.1985, the revisionist cannot be directed to vacate the house allotted to him by opposite party No. 2, argued learned counsel for the revisionist. It has been lastly submitted that the application of the revisionist under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the appellate Court on 19.9.2012, which was challenged in Application under Section 482 No. 35632 of 2012 and this Court vide order dated 7.1.2013 after quashing the impugned order has directed the appellate Court to call for objection from the other side and thereafter dispose of the matter within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed before it.
(2.) Oppugnanting the above arguments learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has contended that the so-called office order is not available on record; that the above order of the Court was filed by the revisionist in the appellate Court after about 2 months and the application of the revisionist under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was rejected on merits by the Court on 17.4.2013, against which the revisionist filed Application under Section 482 No. 14368 of 2013, which had been dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 26.4.2013. Learned counsel emphasised that the revisionist has concealed this fact in his revision, so inter alia on this ground alone the revision is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) On perusal of the record as also the supplementary-affidavit filed by the revisionist today, I find that the contention of learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has force. It is not disputed that during the course of employment of revisionist with O.P. No. 2 he was allotted the disputed accommodation by his employer. He had been in service from 9.7.1976 to 31.7.1999, but till today he has not vacated the accommodation and has wrongfully withheld the same. The opposite party No. 2 filed complaint under Section 630 Companies Act and after full trial, the revisionist was convicted by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut vide judgment dated 22.10.2010 and the revisionist was directed to vacate the house No. 210, Samir Vihar, Modinagar within three months and hand over its vacant possession to the opposite party No. 2 and also to pay compensation @ Rs. 150/- per month from the date of his retirement till vacation of the premises. The revisionist challenged the order in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2010 before Sessions Judge, Meerut, which had been dismissed as stated earlier. Section 630 of The Companies Act provides as under: 630. Penalty for wrongful withholding of property.-- (1) In any officer or employee of a company, (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or (b) having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act, he shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. (2) The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court, any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. Admittedly the revisionist was an employee of opposite party No. 2 having been retired on 31.7.1999 and was and is still in possession of company's property.;