Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 576 (JHR)

S. K. Malhotra v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-08-04

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2005
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner an employee of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited was found guilty for the offence under Section 630 of the Indian Companies Act, by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in Case No. CI-994 of 1999 T.R. No. 136 of 2001 vide judgment dated 4.9.2003 and thereby, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was further directed by the trial Court that the petitioner shall vacate the quarter in his possession within two months from the date of the judgment and in default thereof, he shall have to go to imprisonment for a term of one year. 3. The petitioner in an appeal challenged the said judgment of the Special Judge.) The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 15.6.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2003 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 4. The petitioner has challenged the judgments of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court in this revision application. 5. On 10.8.2004, this Court directed the revision application to be posted on 17th August, 2004 and within that time, the petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter in his possession on receipt of the amount of dues payable to him, according to the respondent-Company and the respondent-Company was directed to deliver the cheque to the petitioner and get possession of the quarter. It was further directed that till further orders, the petitioner shall not be arrested in execution of the warrant of arrest. 6. It is disputed that subsequently, the petitioner has vacated the quarter on receipt of a cheque amounting to Rs. 8,58,666.31. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that though this Court vide order dated 10.8.2004 directed the respondent-Company to pay the amount of dues payable to the petitioner but the respondent-Company illegally issued Annexure-E on 25.8.2004, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 7.05 lakhs to the respondent-Company towards penal rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day, for the unauthorized occupation of the Companys accommodation and thereby a sum of Rs. 1,04,770/- was adjusted against penal rent leaving a balance of about Rs. 6 lakhs. 8. 7.05 lakhs to the respondent-Company towards penal rent at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day, for the unauthorized occupation of the Companys accommodation and thereby a sum of Rs. 1,04,770/- was adjusted against penal rent leaving a balance of about Rs. 6 lakhs. 8. From Annexure-3, it appears that prior to the issuance of the aforesaid letter dated 25.8.2004, a letter was issued by the Company of 29.7.2003 to the petitioner whereby the amount recoverable from the petitioner towards house rent including the penal rent up to 23.6.3003 was shown to be Rs. 5,60,325.03. 9. Noticing all those facts, this Count vide order dated 10.8.2004, directed the respondent-Company to pay the amount of dues payable to the petitioner and to get the possession of the quarter and, therefore, I am afraid as to whether the respondent-Company was competent enough or was justified to issue such a letter to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 10.8.2004. However, the said matter cannot be decided in this application. 10. Having gone through, the judgments passed by the trial Court, I find that the learned Court below has come to the finding on facts on the materials on record that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, and as such in that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the findings on facts by the learned Court below. The sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner by the trial Court also appears to be reasonable and it needs no interference. 11. So far as the issuance of Annexure-E dated 25.8.2004 is concerned, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the respondent-Company by filing a representation ventilating his grievance, which shall be dealt with and disposed of by the respondent-Company within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation of the petitioner keeping mind the observation made by this Court in this order. 12. 12. It is not disputed that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner has already vacated the quarter and also deposited the fine imposed on him by the Courts below and, therefore, the last part of the impugned order wherein the trial Court directed the petitioner to serve imprisonment for one year in default to vacate the quarter in question within two months from the date of judgment is held to be redundant. Now the question of imprisonment of the petitioner does not arise. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is dismissed.