Judgment :- PRATAP SINGH, J. The accused in C. C. No. 123 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. I.), Madras, has filed this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and to quash the same. The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner in C. C. No. 123 of 1991 for an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The complainant is a private limited company. The accused was one of the directors of the company till January 2, 1984. He was provided with residential accommodation at No. 16, Dr. Nair Road, T. Nagar, Madras, for his occupation and an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. TMU 1085 by virtue of his being one of the directors of the company. He was removed from directorship of the company on January 2, 1984. On his ceasing to be a director of the company, he ought to have delivered possession of the house and car mentioned supra. Despite repeated demands, he had not delivered possession of the same. He had ceased to be an officer of the company from January 2, 1984. He is wrongly withholding the properties of the company and has thereby committed an offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act. It is a continuing offence. The offence is being committed till such time as the accused delivered possession of the property belonging to the company. Hence the complaint. Mr. K. N. Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the penalty for the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act is only fine which may extend to Rs. 1, 000 and, by virtue of section 468(2)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, the period of limitation for such offence is only six months. Hence the complaint. Mr. K. N. Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the penalty for the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act is only fine which may extend to Rs. 1, 000 and, by virtue of section 468(2)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, the period of limitation for such offence is only six months. He would add that as per the complaint, the petitioner was removed from the directorship on January 2, 1984, and after that date, he was not a director of the company and six months had elapsed since January 2, 1984, and hence the complaint is liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation.In Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani v. Achyut Kashinath Wagh a single judge of the Bombay High Court had held that clause (b) of section 630 deals with wrongful withholding of possession by both a past and present employee. This view was approved by the Supreme Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Though the beneficent provision contained in section 630 is penal, it has been purposely enacted by the Legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of the company, (a) where an officer or employee of a company wrongfully withholds 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 with holds 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 furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. So, I am clear that the question of limitation does not arise in this case, since it is a continuing offence so long as withholding continues. No other ground was urged before me. In view of the above, the petition does not deserve admission and is dismissed.