LexLALITA JALAN AND ANR. versus BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LALITA JALAN AND ANR. A v. BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. AND ORS. APRIL ! 6, 2003 [S. RAJENDRA BABU, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND G.P. MATHUR; JJ.] B Companies Act, 1956-Section 630: Wrongful withholding of property of company--Petition against family members of deceased employee-Maintainability of-Held: Such petition is C maintainable and the accused are liable to be prosecuted under Section 630 since all those who come in possession of premises with express and implied consent of employee including his family members and do not vaca/e the premises would be withholding delivery of property to company-It would also include anyone inducted in possession of property by such persons and who continue to withhold the property-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, D Section 482. Object of-Discussed. Interpretation of Statutes-Construction of-Object a/Section 630 being to retrieve property of company thus not a penal provision as normal attributes E of crime nnd punishment not present-Thus principle of strict construction relating to criminal statutes not applicable-Companies Act, 1956, Section 630. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 2 I-Protection of life and personal liberty-Wrongful withholding of property by employee or anyone claiming p through him of such property-Penalty and prosecution under Section 630- Violation of Article 2 I-Held: Possession of properties by employee or anyone claiming through him of such property is unla11jid and recovery of the same on the pain of being committed to a prison or payment of fine not unreasonable or irrational or unfair to attract rigour of Article 21-Companies Act, 1956, Section 630. G Words and Phrases: "Employee or anyone" claiming through him-Meaning of in the context of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. 589 H 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R. A "Withholding "-Meaning of ·-- Respondent No. I-company took a nat on lease. It allotted the nat to J in his capacity as director of the company. J died. The company purchased the nat and became an owner. However, the appellants and respondent no 2-The son, daughter in law and grandson of J did not vacate B the nat and hand over the possession to the company. Respondent no 1 filed criminal complaint under Section 630 of Companies Act, 1956 against appellants and process were issued against them. Appellants filed appeal for recall which was rejected. Appellants then filed petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C and Article 227 of the Constitution. High Court dismissed c the petition. Hence the present appeal. Appellants contended that Section 630 of the Act can apply only to lrn officer or employee of the company; that the flat was given to J for his residence but he died when he w11• «ill functioning as the director of the company and the appellants are neither officers nor employees of the D company and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted under section 630 and the complaint filed against them is liable to be quashed; that in accordance with Hindu Succession Act, son of J would be his legal heir and not his daughter in law and grand son therefore, principle laid down in Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain's case that petition against legal heirs of deceased employee for retrieval of company's property withheld would be E maintainable, would not be applicable to the instant case; that a Statute enacting an offence or imposing a penalty is to be strictly construed; and that section 630 refers to an officer or employee of a company and being a penal provision, it will be against all canons of interpretation of Statutes t to include family members of a former or deceased employee within its F fold. Respondent contended that the appellants are family members of J and it is they who are wrongfully withholding the property of the company, in these circumstances they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 630 and there is absolutely no ground for either quashing the complaint or G the process issued against them. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The purpose of criminal justice is to award punishment. It is a method of protecting society by reducing the occurrence of criminal H behaviour. It also acts as a deterrent. Where the punishment is disabling or preventive, its aim is to prevent a repetition of the offence by rendering j LALIT A JALAN v. BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. 591 the offender incapable of its commission. The Companies Act is entirely A different from those statutes wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.