J.K. (BOMBAY) LTD. versus BHARTI MATHA MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 18-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J.K.' (BOMBAY) LTD. 
v. 
BHARTI MATHA MISHRA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Company law: 
Companies Act, 1956: 
Section 630-Wrongfitl withholding of property-Ex-employee did not 
vacate company property allotted to him during the course of his employment-
Prosecution initiated against his wife and father-Validity of-Held: 
A 
B 
c 
Prosecution cannot be initiated against family members of an '"ex-employee'" 
or "officer" of a company who is alive-Hence, High Court rightly recalled 
the order of process against wife and father of ex-employee. 
D 
The appellant-company employed M as a Trainee Supervision in its 
plant and allotted a flat to him for his residence during the course of his 
employment. Subsequently, M resigned and he was asked to vacate the flat 
in question. However, M refused to vacate the flat and a complaint under E 
Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed by the appellant against 
M, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 who were the wife and father of 
M. The Judicial Magistrate rejected the applications filed by respondent No. 
1 and No. 2 to recall the order of process against them. The revision petition 
filed by them was also dismissed. However, the High Court allowed their writ 
petition. Hence this appeal. 
F 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that as legal heirs of the 
erstwhile employee can be prosecuted, the other family members of such 
employee, living with him cannot escape their liability of prosecution. 
The following question of law arose before this Court :-
Whether the family members of an employee or an ex-employee of a 
company can be proceeded with in a criminal court, convicted and sentenced 
for the commission of offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 
1956? 
439 
G 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(200 I] I S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal,' the Court 
HELD: 1.2. Penal law cannot be interpreted in a manner to cover within 
its ambit such persons who are left out by the legislature. The position of 
the legal heirs of the deceased employee cannot be equated with the family 
members of an erstwhile employee against whom, admittedly, the criminal 
B prosecution is launched and pending. In criminal cases the law which initials 
conviction and sentence, liberal construction, with the aid of assumption, 
presumption and implications cannot be resorted to for the purpose of roping 
in the criminal prosecution, such persons who are otherwise not intended 
to be prosecuted or dealt with by criminal court. Accepting the contention 
C of the appellant would amount to violation of fundamental right of personal 
liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which declares 
that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except 
according to the procedure established by !aw. The paramount object of 
Article 21 is to prevent the encroachment of the right of a person with 
respect to his life and liberty, save in accordance with the procedure 
D established by law and in conformity with the provisions thereof. Personal 
liberty envisaged under this Article means freedom from physical restraint 
of a person by incarceration or otherwise. Agreeing with the plea of the 
appellant would also be against public policy, inasmuch as under similar 
circumstances the companies would be authorised to resort to harassment 
E tactics by having recourse of arraigning minors and old members of the 
family of its officer or employee in office or even past. 1445-F-HI 
Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India, 119871 4 SCC 
361; Amritlal Chum v. Devoprasad Dutta Roy, 1198814 SCC 514 and Gokak 
Patel Vokart ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath, 1199112 SCC 141, 
F relied on. 
Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain (Smt.) v. Cox & Kings (India) ltd., 119951 
3 sec 732, held inapplicable. 
1.2. The family members ofan alive 'officer' or 'employee' ofa company 
G cannot be proceeded with and prosecuted under Section 630 of the Act. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 87of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.1998 in CRLWP 1523/98 of the 
H High Court of Bombay. 
l.K. BOMBAY LTD. v. B.M. MISHRA [SETHI, .I.] 
441 
S. Ganesh, P. Venugopal, PS Sudheer, K.J. John, Pradeep Misra and S.V. A 
'-
Deshpande for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
Whether the family members of an employee or an ex-employee of a 
company can be proceeded with in a cr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.