B J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant - original complainant Ranson Industrial Engineers pvt. Ltd. has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11th april, 1994 passed by the learned JMFC, Umargaon, Valsad in Criminal Case No. 827/89, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent accused, who was the workman of the company, for the offence under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act. On behalf of the appellant company, its Manager Shri Daulatbhai N. Desai filed direct complaint dated 19. 5. 1989 before the learned JMFC, Umargaon, against the respondent accused for the offence under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act, which was registered as criminal Case No. 827/89. It appears from the record of the case that statement of the complainant was recorded below the complaint and thereafter, immediately on that day i. e. on 19. 5. 1989, summons was ordered to be issued against the respondent accused. Whenever the complaint is made directly before the learned Magistrate, then he is required to examine the complainant under Sec. 200 Crpc. He may postpone the issue of process under Sec. 202 and dismiss the complaint under Sec. 203 if, after considering the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the enquiry or the investigation made under Sec. 202 he is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. For that he is required to record brief reasons. However, if he is satisfied that the cognizance is required to be taken of an offence, then he has to issue process in form of summons or warrant under Sec. 204 crpc. However, under Sec. 204 (2), no summons or warrant can be issued against the accused until a list of prosecution witnesses has been filed. Admittedly, such list was not -filed in the present case by the complainant alongwith his complaint. Without considering the provisions of Sec. 204 (2) Crpc, the learned Magistrate straight away issued the process in the form of summons against the respondent accused. After considering the evidence of the complainant and the evidence led by the accused, the learned Magistrate by his impugned judgment and order dated 11. 4. 1994 acquitted the respondent accused for the offepce under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act. ( 2 ) IT appears from the record of the case and the. After considering the evidence of the complainant and the evidence led by the accused, the learned Magistrate by his impugned judgment and order dated 11. 4. 1994 acquitted the respondent accused for the offepce under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act. ( 2 ) IT appears from the record of the case and the. averments made in the complaint as well as the evidence of the complainant that the respondent accused was serving with the company as Supervisor since 26th March, 1986. His services were unceremoniously terminated on 4. 1. 1989. It seems that looking to the nature of his duty, he was provided one room as a quarter to leave in which he was staying with his family. On termination of his service, he was simultaneously called upon to vacate the said quarter. Below the termination notice dated 4. 1. 1989 Exh. 24, writing of the accused was obtained on 29. 3. 1989 in form of undertaking that he will hand over the possession of the quarter which was allotted to him by the company on 3. 4. 1989, failing which conjpany can take the possession of the said quarter from him in accordance with law. However, the respondent accused did not hand over the possession of the said quarter, therefore, the complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate against him for the offence under sec. 630 of the Companies Act, with a prayer to direct the respondent accused to hand over the possession of the quarter to the company. ( 3 ) IT may be stated that the respondent accused has challenged his termination order before the Labour Court of Valsad Distt. at Navsari and the said reference is pending even till today. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the complainant, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his case against the respondent accused for the offence under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act, and, therefore, he acquitted the accused. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri P. K. Jani for the appellant complainant vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate was wholly wrong in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondent accused for the reasons assigned in his judgment. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri P. K. Jani for the appellant complainant vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate was wholly wrong in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondent accused for the reasons assigned in his judgment. He submitted that once the order of termination of the respondent workman was passed and the services of the respondent accused was terminated, then he was not entitled to retain the possession of the quarter even for a day. He submitted that looking to the duties assigned to the respondent accused he was allotted quarter and the company is finding lot of difficulties in allotting the said quarter to the other workman who is employed in his place. He submitted that once the services of the respondent workman is terminated, then his possession of the quarter becomes unlawful. Therefore, he should have been convicted and sentenced accordingly and ordered to hand-over the possession of the said quarter to the company forthwith. It support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of kannankandi Gopal Krishna Nair vs. Prakash Chunder Juneja and Anr. , 1994 (81) company Cases, page 104. ( 5 ) 5. 1 have carefully gone through the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of kannankandi Gopal Krishna Nair (Supra ). In that case the flat in posh area of Bombay was provided to the accused who was working with the company and on his termination the possession of that flat was claimed. The accused refused to hand over the possession and, therefore, complaint under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act was filed. Considering the fact that value of the flat in Bombay is so high and it is difficult to get the flats in Bombay, the Court on facts of that case held that offence under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act was made out. However, I do not want to express any opinion about the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Kannankandi Gopal krishna Nair (Supra ). But, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment will have no application to the facts of the present case. Under the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 10th August, 1971 (Exh. 27) on instalments of 20 years the present appellant company claimed to have purchased the quarters from GIDC. The respondent accused was allotted one room. But, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment will have no application to the facts of the present case. Under the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 10th August, 1971 (Exh. 27) on instalments of 20 years the present appellant company claimed to have purchased the quarters from GIDC. The respondent accused was allotted one room. The company has not produced before the Trial Court the terms and conditions of the service of the respondent accused and the allotment of quarter to him. One can be convicted for the offence under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act, provided he wrongfully obtains property of a company or having any such property in his possession wrongfully with-held or knowingly applies it to purpose other than those expressed or directed in the Articles or authorised by the Act. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case it is not the case of the complainant that the accused wrongfully obtained the possession of the quarter from the company. In fact, the said quarter was allotted by the company to the respondent accused. The question is, with the arbitrary termination of the services of the respondent workman can it be said that his possession becomes wrongful ? More particularly, when the respondent accused as workman has already approached the Labour Court by way of a reference in which Labour Commissioner has already directed the company to reinstate the workman, but so far he has not been reinstated. In the instant case the appellant company has number of quarters and the very fact that since 1989 till 2001 for more than a period of 12 years the company could manage its functioning through another person by providing another quarter itself shows that company was never in dire or urgent need of the quarter, whereas if the respondent accused is thrown out from the quarter, then he will also loose the roof over his head after he is rendered jobless by the" company. One has to struck the balance. The balance must till in the favour of poor and needy person. It is unfortunate that number of years are taken in disposal of the cases pending before the Labour Courts. At times the practice adopted by the employer also is to see to it that the proceedings are prolonged once the services of the workman is terminated. The balance must till in the favour of poor and needy person. It is unfortunate that number of years are taken in disposal of the cases pending before the Labour Courts. At times the practice adopted by the employer also is to see to it that the proceedings are prolonged once the services of the workman is terminated. In such type of cases if the workman is asked to hand over the possession of the flat under Sec. 630 of the Companies Act by convicting him, then it would not be in the interest of justice. ( 7 ) HAVING carefully gone through the reasons assigned by the learned Judge for acquitting the accused, I am in broad agreement. Therefore, I do not intend to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal, that too after a period of more than 12 years of the commission of the offence. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting, I must state that the learned Magistrate who had initially took cognizance and issued summons against the respondent accused committed clear breach of provisions of Sec. 204 (2) Crpc. In absence of list of witnesses produced by the complainant, the Magistrate ought not to have issued the process. Though this point was not specifically raised before the learned Magistrate, on this point also the order of acquittal is required to be confirmed. However, it was submitted by Mr. Jani, learned counsel for the appellant that such irregularity can be cured under Sec. 465 Crpc by this Court. I am not inclined to accept this submission on facts of this case. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Notice issued on the point of interim relief also stands dismissed. .