- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 23-8-1994 by Shri O. P. Garg, District Judge, Allahabad dismissing the appeal filed by the present applicant against the judgment dated 4-6-1994 passed by Shri R. A. Kaushik. Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in complaint case No. 7s1 of 1991.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Renusagar Power Company Limited filed a complaint against the accused R. Antony under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging that on the basis of the appointment letter dated 12-3-1970 the accused started working as an employee of the Company since 19-3-1970. It was further alleged that quarter No. 1-13/6 which was owned by the Company was allotted to the accused by order dated 15-6-1983 and declaration dated 20-8-1983. THE quarter was allotted to the accused in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service. THE services of the accused were terminated by an order dated 15-12-1990. He was served several notices requiring him to vacate the quarter and the last notice was given on 24-12-1990 but he has not vacated the same, hence the complaint. The accused in his statement before the trial Court said that the order dismissing him from service was illegal and against that order proceed ings are pending before the Industrial Court. The accused admitted that the quarter belonged to the Company and was allotted to him. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused further stated that the quarter owned by the Company but was constructed after taking loan. The complainant examined witness and produced documents in support of its case. While the complaint was still pending Renusagar Power Company Limited was amalgamated with Hindalco Industries Limited by order of this Court passed on 31-3-1992. That order provided that the successor Company could continue the legal proceedings initiated by the prede cessor Company. The learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad convicted the accused under Section 630 (1 ) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 and directed the accused to hand over the possession of the quarter to the com plainant by 19-7-1994. The learned Magistrate also directed the accused to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from 1-1-1991 to the date of vacation of the quarter. It also provided that in case the quarter was not vacated within the time allowed the accused will undergo rigorous imprison ment for a period of one year.
(3.) THE accused filed appeal against this judgment which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad by order dated 23-8-1994. THE accused then filed the present revision. It came up for hearing before Hon'ble C. A. Rahim, J. , who allowed it by order dated 31-8-1994 an the preliminary ground that after amalgamation of the complainant Company with the Hidalgo Industries Limited it was necessary for the successor Company to step into the shoes of the complainant Company by filing a petition seeking permission to continue the proceedings under Section 302, Cr. P. C. otherwise it will fall under the mischief of Section 256, Cr. P. C. It was further observed that where such permission was not taken the case become non because of the want of com plainant and it must have been terminated under Section 256, Cr. P. C. With these observations the revision was allowed and the judgments by both the courts below were set aside and the accused was acquitted under Section 256, Cr. P. C. Against this order, the complainant filed S. L. P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. That S. L. P. was allowed by order dated 2-5-1995 with the following observations : "while issuing notice to the respondent in this matter, we had required of the appellant-Company to impaled the successor Company as a co-appellant. THE same has been done. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on such impalement. We take the view that a successor Company is a necessary and proper party to this kind of a proceeding. We, therefore, allow impalement. Thus, we have now before us two appellants-the predecessor and the successor Company. Now, there is no impediment in the pursuit of the complaint and for maintenance of the conviction if merited in accordance with law, As a sequence we have no difficulty now in upsetting the impugned order of the High Court and remitting the matter back to it for re-consideration of the matter on its own merit. We order accordingly. " The matter has now been heard by me, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Shri Tejpal, who has appeared on behalf of the accused-applicant has raised several points during his arguments in support of his contention that the judgments by the courts below were liable to be dismissed. I will first take up the points which were initially pleaded on behalf of the accused applicant during the trial or before the appellate court. The first point relates to the non-impleadment of the successor Company before the trial court even after the amalgamation of the complainant Company with the successor Company. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that due to this non-impleadment the complaint was liable to be dismissed under Section 256, Cr. P. C. as it must be held that the predecessor company ceased to exist and there was no complainant to pursue the complaint after the com plainant Company so ceased to exist. Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, who has appeared on behalf of the opposite party- complainant has argued that this question has been finally decided by the Supreme Court alter the successor Company was impkaded as a party before that court. It has also been argued that as the successor Company was entitled to continue the proceedings initia ted by the predecessor Company in accordance with the scheme of amalgama tion approved by this court, the complaint could not have been dismissed under Section 256, Cr. P. C.;