MALAY KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 24, 1997 passed by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1997 of that court under which he acquitted the accused appellant by reversing the judgment and order dated March 18 1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicting the accused under Section 630 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarised as follows : m/s. Union of India Ltd. , under which the respondent-accused, Birendra Nath Bhattacharjee, was employed as an officer brought a criminal case against the said respondent-accused before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), Alipore, on the allegations that the respondent was provided with residential accommodation in the first floor-flat of premises No. 766/1 Block "p", New Alipore, Calcutta, in respect of which the company-complainant was a tenant on payment of monthly rent on the fulfilment of different terms and conditions as stipulated under a written agreement. The accused respondent was allowed to occupy this flat as an officer of the company on the condition that he would restore the vacant possession of that flat in favour of the company immediately on his retirement. He retired on and from March 1, 1991, but he did not deliver the vacant possession of the flat in favour of the company, when the company was compelled to send a letter dated March 25, 1991, to him asking him to vacate the said flat in favour of the company at once. But the accused in violation of the terms and conditions of his service and also the statutory provisions of law continued to occupy the flat raising different wrongful pleas at different times. Under such circumstances, the company became constrained to lodge this complaint against him before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, under Section 630 (1) (b) of the Companies Act. ( 3 ) THE court took cognisance of the offence and issued summons against the accused whereupon he appeared before the court. When the court examined him under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stating the substance of the accusation against him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ( 3 ) THE court took cognisance of the offence and issued summons against the accused whereupon he appeared before the court. When the court examined him under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stating the substance of the accusation against him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the trial commenced and the complainant-company examined its witnesses numbering six. They were cross-examined by the defence, but the defence examined only one witness, namely, PW-1. Besides oral evidence, the company also adduced documentary evidences. Sixteen documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The defence, however, produced two documents marked as exhibits "a and "b". Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After considering the materials on record and hearing the arguments of the learned advocates of both the sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed his judgment whereunder he found the accused guilty under Section 630 (1) (b) of the Companies Act and convicted him therein and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 2000. The court also directed the convict to deliver up the flat in dispute in favour of the company within three months from the date of judgment, i. e. , March 18, 1997. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved thereby, the convict-respondent preferred an appeal against that judgment and order of conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, and the appeal was transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who after hearing the arguments of both the sides passed the impugned judgment dated November 24, 1997, allowing the said criminal appeal and setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under challenge and finding the appellant not guilty of the charge and acquitting him under Section 255 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the company-complainant has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment as erroneous, illegal, unjustified and liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) DURING the hearing of this appeal before this court the respondent-accused did not appear in spite of repeated calls either personally or through his learned counsel. On the other hand, Mr. ( 6 ) DURING the hearing of this appeal before this court the respondent-accused did not appear in spite of repeated calls either personally or through his learned counsel. On the other hand, Mr. Biplab Mitra, who was the learned advocate for him, appeared before this court and submitted that the respondent having taken away the brief from him, he no longer was empowered to make any submission on his behalf. Under such circumstances, the matter was heard in the absence of the accused-respondent. ( 7 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-company, at the very outset, has drawn my attention to the cryptic manner in which the judgment has been passed by the learned court below, namely, the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore. In this very brief judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge has simultaneously expressed diametrically opposite observations. At the first instance, he begins with the assertion that among the witnesses, PW-4, Smt. Jaya Mitra, is the landlady in respect of the disputed flat. But few lines after, he observes that in this case the landlady having not been examined by the complainant, the company has failed to show that its tenancy under that landlady in respect of the disputed flat is still continuing. It is needless to mention that the said landlady, as per his own statement at page 4 of the judgment, has been examined by the complainant and as a matter of fact, the deposition of that landlady (PW-4) is very much there in the lower court records and in her deposition, she appears to have stated in unambiguous language that the tenancy of the company is still continuing on payment of rent every month through cheques and in the face of such clear cut evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for reasons best known to him, come to a finding like this. It is not understood how and under what circumstances he had made his comments in the judgment that there is scope for doubt as to why there was a move to go on with a draft agreement as revealed in the letter, namely, exhibit "a". Such unwarranted observation on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who appears to be one of the seniormost and veteran judicial officers, is unthinkable and leaves this court surprised. Such unwarranted observation on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who appears to be one of the seniormost and veteran judicial officers, is unthinkable and leaves this court surprised. ( 8 ) UNDER the provisions of Section 630 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, if any officer of a company having any property belonging to the company in his possession, wrongfully withholds it, he shall on the complaint of the company be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 and further under Sub-section (2) of the said Act it is provided that the court trying the offence may order such officer or employee to deliver up within a time to be fixed by the court, any such property wrongfully withheld, in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. ( 9 ) AS the oral and documentary evidence shows, the accused was provided with the disputed flat as a residential accommodation in his official capacity and under the terms he was to vacate it in favour of the company on his superannuation. It is also admitted that the flat was given to him by the company on such terms and conditions vide his answer to question No. 1 under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also the letter of his advocate dated May 13, 1991, vide exhibit 4 written to the company. In this letter, it has been admitted in clear terms that the company used to pay rent to the landlady on behalf of the accused respondent and also that the company took tenancy in respect of this flat for this employee and used to pay rent at Rs. 625 per month to the landlady. Exhibit 7 is another letter from the respondent accused to the company which shows that he would retire from services under the company on and from March 1, 1991, and he was eligible for pension and accordingly, he was submitting his option as required under the rules. Exhibit 8 is a letter dated March 20, 1992, on the question of his getting arrears accumulated due to increase in the rate of pension. Similarly, exhibits 9, 10 and 11 are all documents to show that he retired from the office under the company on the abovementioned date. Exhibit 8 is a letter dated March 20, 1992, on the question of his getting arrears accumulated due to increase in the rate of pension. Similarly, exhibits 9, 10 and 11 are all documents to show that he retired from the office under the company on the abovementioned date. Exhibit 12 is a letter dated April 25, 1991 to the respondent from the company containing the intimation of refusal of the company in respect of his request for being granted house rent allowance. It further shows that the company informed him further that it was under no obligation to transfer the tenancy in favour of him who was a retired employee of the company. So, it is abundantly proved by the prosecution that the accused respondent had no legal right whatsoever to continue in occupation in the disputed flat which was a tenanted quarter of the company. The accused respondent has taken a plea in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that Mr. Alok Ghosh and Mrs. Jaya Mitra, the owners of the disputed flat permitted him to occupy the flat in question and he was thus in permissive possession of the same and the company though an erstwhile tenant in respect of the same was no longer so and, therefore it had no right to bring such a proceeding against him. But this case of the accused has been falsified by the evidence of the said Mrs. Jaya Mitra (PW-4), the very landlady in respect of the disputed flat. She has stated that she has been receiving rent from the company through account payee cheques every month regularly by registered post and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between herself and the accused respondent. The defence has miserably failed to adduce the slightest evidence in support of such a plea as taken by the accused while being examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The documents which have been produced by him are exhibits "a" and "b" but neither of them has any bearing upon the claim of the accused that he is a tenant directly under the landlords of the disputed flat. Exhibit "a" is a letter written by one Sri P. K. Bose to the accused respondent to the effect that the writer was expressing his hope that he (the accused) had a clear talk over phone with Mrs. Exhibit "a" is a letter written by one Sri P. K. Bose to the accused respondent to the effect that the writer was expressing his hope that he (the accused) had a clear talk over phone with Mrs. Mitter before her departure for Pondicherry and he (the accused) had perhaps understood her views regarding the flat. These statements suggest nothing. There is nothing absolutely in the contents of this letter which can be stated to serve as a proof or evidence in support of the claim of the accused that he had a direct tenancy or a licence taken from the landlady, Ms. Jaya Mitra. Thus, such a case made out by the accused appears to be totally absurd and unworthy of reliance. ( 10 ) AS I have shown above, the entire evidence including both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the prosecution has abundantly proved that the disputed flat was given to the accused respondent as an officer of the complainant-company by way of a residential accommodation during the period of his service under the company and on termination of such service, he was to deliver up the same back to the company. But in spite of his retirement from the service under the company, he has been overstaying there unlawfully paying no heed to the repeated reminders given by the company to vacate the disputed flat in favour of the company and thereby he has rendered himself liable under the provisions of Section 630 (1) (b) of the Companies Act. I fail to understand how the learned Additional Sessions Judge being the appellate court drew such absurd conclusions and arrived at self-contradictory findings regarding the question as to whether the ingredients of the provisions of Section 630 (1) (b) of the Companies Act had been fulfilled from the evidence. The decision of the learned trial court, i. e. , the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate were perfectly in order and I do not find any reason why such findings of the learned trial court should not be accepted. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, being totally perverse be set aside and the judgment and order of the learned trial court, i. e. , the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate be revived. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, being totally perverse be set aside and the judgment and order of the learned trial court, i. e. , the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate be revived. The accused-respondent stands found guilty under Section 630 (1) (b) of the Companies Act and stands convicted thereunder and the order that he be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 be upheld and restored. The further order of the learned trial court directing the accused-respondent to deliver up vacant possession of the disputed flat in favour of the complainant company within three months, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year be also restored and affirmed. ( 12 ) THE criminal appeal is allowed. ( 13 ) LET the LCR of the case be sent down to the learned trial court forthwith. ( 14 ) THE learned trial magistrate after receiving the records shall direct the convict to comply with the above orders of this court within two months from the date on which such direction will be issued by the learned magistrate. If the convict fails to make payment of the fine as per the order within the said stipulated period, then the learned magistrate shall issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the convict and after procuring his appearance send him to the jail to serve out the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. If the convict fails to comply with the second part of this order, that is, if he fails to deliver up vacant possession of the disputed flat in favour of the complainant-company as directed, then the complainant will be at a liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.