GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LTD. versus DUNDAYYA GURUSHIDDAIAH HIREMATH AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 14-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LTD. 
v. 
DUNDAYYA GURUSHIDDAIAH HIREMATH AND ORS. ---1 
FEBRUARY 14, 1991 
)
' 
B 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Companies Act, 1956-Section 630-Continuing offence-Cons-
truction of-Court's duty-Legislative intention. 
Companies Act, 1956-Section 630_..:..."0fficer'' or "employee"-
lncludes past and present officer or employee. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1972-Section 472-"Continuing 
offence" -Construction and nature of-Limitation computation. 
-
Companies Act, 1956-Section 630(1)(b)-Non-vacation o~
quarters even after retirement-Continuing offence for the purpose of 
limitation. 
Appellant-Company filed criminal complaints under Section 
630(1)(b), Companies Act and Section 406, IPC against its employees 
' '-
(the first respondent of each appeal) as they did not vacate the company 
quarters after about six months even after retirement. The Judidal >-. _,_ 
Magistrate, First Class dismissed the complaints as the same were not 
··· 
filed within the period of limitation of six months from the date of 
retirement of the Respondents-employees. 
The High Court, holding that the offence under Section 630(1) 
was not a continuing offence, dismissed the Company's revision 
petitions. 
In the appeal to this Court on the question, whether the offe~ 
.._ 
under Section 630(l)(b) of the Companies Act is a continuing offence for 
the purpose of limitation, allowing the Appeals of the Appellant-Com-
pany, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The beneficent provision contained in s. 630, no doubt 
penal, has been purposely enacted by the legislature with the object or--
providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of the com-
H pany: (a) where an officer or employee of a company wrongfully obtains 
396 
-
VOLKART LTD. v. D.G. HIREMATH 
397 
possession of property of the company, or (b) where having been placed 
in possession of any such property during the course of his employment, 
wrongfully withholds possession of it after the termination of his 
employment. It is the duty of the court to place a broad and liberal 
construction on the provision in furtherence of the object and purpose 
of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the 
remedy. [406B-E] 
·...(. 
2. "Officer" or "employee" in s. 630 of the Companies Act 
includes both present and past officers and employees. [405B-C] 
3. The concept of continuing offence does not wipe out the origi-
nal guilt, but it keeps the contravention alive day by day. The courts 
when confronted with provisions which lay down a rule of limitation 
governing prosecutions should give due weight and consideration to the 
provisions of s. 473 of the Code which is in the nature of an ovei;riding 
provision and according to which, notwithstanding anything contained 
in the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
any court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiration of a 
period of limitation, if, inter alia, it is satisfied that it is necessary to do 
so in the interest of justice. [ 409D-G] 
4. The expression 'continuing offence' has not been defined in the 
Code. The question whether a particular offence is a 'continuing 
offence' or not must, therefore, necessarily depend upon the language 
of the statute which creates that offence, the nature of the offence and 
the purpose intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as 
an offence. [409F-H] 
5. The offence under section 630 is not such as can be said to have 
E 
I 
-~ 
consummated once for all. Wrongful withholding, or wrongfully 
F 
-,.- obtaining possession and wrongful application of the company's pro-
perty, that is, for purposes other than those expressed or directed in the 
articles of the company and authorised by the Companies Act, can not 
be said to be terminated by a single act or fact but would subsist for the 
period until the property in.the offender's possession is delivered up or 
refunded. It is an offence committed over a span of time and the last act 
G 
of the offence will control the commencement of the period of limitation 
-~ and need be alleged. The offence consists of a course of conduct arising 
from a singleness of thought, purpose of refusal to deliver up or refund 
which may be deemed a single impulse. Considered from another angle, 
it consists of a continuous series of acts which endures after the period 
of consummation on refusal to deliver up or refund the property. It is 
H 
398 
SUPREME
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.