JUDGMENT:- Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. The hearing arises from an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr.PC filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the judgment and order dated 02.05.01 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in C.R. Case No. 385/1999 under section 630 of the Companies Act by way of setting aside the same. 2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the petitioner who was a school-teacher of Nagaisuree Tea Garden Primary School was also appointed in 1958 as part-time clerk of the said tea garden. He tendered resignation from the post of clerk which was accepted with effect from 01.04.1992. While he was in service no quarter was allotted to him. In 1979 he acquired a vested land of 0.60 acre appertaining to plot No.347, J.L. No.6 in mouza Nagaisuree Tea Garden area and constructed a hut thereon. In 1992 at the time of his resignation all dues were paid up and the O.P. never raised any question as to the occupation of the purported quarter. His son made an application along with a certificate issued by the local panchayat on 22.02.1999 to the West Bengal State Electricity Board for electric connection to his house, but suddenly a letter was sent to his on 16.08.1999 by W.B.S.E.B. alleging that an objection was made by the Senior Manager, Nagaisuree Tea Garden for which work of giving electric connection was stopped by W.B.S.E.B. 3. O.P. No.1 filed a complaint being C.R. Case No.385 of 1999 under section 630 of the Companies Act in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, inter alia, alleging that the accused/petitioner after termination of his service, despite repeated requests failed to vacate the quarter. Hence, the accused/petitioner was charged under section 630 of the Companies Act. 4. The defence case is a plea of innocence. 5. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record the learned Court below found the accused/petitioner guilty under section 630 of the Companies Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 900/- i.d. to S.I. for fifteen days. 6. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 7. Mr. 900/- i.d. to S.I. for fifteen days. 6. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 7. Mr. Bag, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that since the land in question appertaining to plot No. 347 of mouza Nagaisuree Tea Garden is a vested land and his client constructed a hut thereon and approached the B.L.& L.R.O. for settlement of the said land on a long term lease, only the State can proceed against him and not his employer. Mr. Bag further contended that at the time of leaving his job in 1992 all dues of his client were paid up, but O.P. No.1 company did not raise any question of unauthorised occupation of the alleged quarter by the petitioner, on the contrary, allowed the petitioner to occupy and enjoy the same for long seven years and such conduct of O.P. No.1 does no speak of his ownership of the said quarter. Mr. Roy learned Counsel for O.P. No.1, on the other hand, relying upon the cases of Avilash Vinodkumar Jain vs. Cox & Kings (India) Limited, reported in 1995 C Cr.L R (SC) 234 and Gokak Patel Volkart Limited vs. D.G. Hiremath, reported in 1991 SCC (Cri) 315, submitted that it was the O.P. No.1 company which allotted the residential quarter No.287 to its employee the petitioner and though the petitioners resignation was accepted with effect from 01.04.1992 he failed to vacate the quarter despite repeated requests, and as such there being no infirmity with the impugned order, the present application should be dismissed in limine. 8. With all my concurrence with the above contention of the learned Counsel O.P., I may plough a lonely furrow. 9. Section 630 of the Companies Act provides a speedy relief to a company when its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an employee or ex-employee. What is penalised is not only wrongful obtaining possession of property and subsequent wrongful withholding of it [sub-section (1)] but also refusal to deliver up the property within the time fixed by the Court for such delivery [sub-section (2)]. 10. What is penalised is not only wrongful obtaining possession of property and subsequent wrongful withholding of it [sub-section (1)] but also refusal to deliver up the property within the time fixed by the Court for such delivery [sub-section (2)]. 10. The capacity, right to possession and duration of occupation are all features which are integrally blended with the employment and the capacity and the corresponding rights are extinguished with the cessation of employment and an obligation arises to hand over the allotted property back to the company. Where the property of the company is held back whether by the employee, past employee or anyone claiming under them, the retained possession would amount to wrongful withholding of the property of the company actionable under section 630 of the Act. The failure to deliver property back to the employer on the termination, resignation, superannuation or death of an employee would render the "holding" of that property wrongful and actionable under section 630 of the Act, as was held in the case of Avilash Vinodkumar Jain (supra). Refusal to vacate the companys quarter after retirement or termination of service constitutes a continuing offence within the meaning of section 472 Cr. PC and hence period of limitation under section 468(2) (a) Cr. PC for taking cognizance of the offence is inapplicable. Reference may be made in this connection to the case of Gokak Patel Volkart Limited (supra). 11. In the case on hand, not a scrap of paper was produced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that the land is vested. It is the specific case of O.P. No.1 company that the petitioner while in service was allotted the quarter which belongs to the company and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in this regard remain uncontroverted. Though the resignation of the petitioner was accepted with effect from 01.04.1992, despite requests he failed to deliver vacant possession of the quarter as stated by P.W.2 which also remains unassailed. Accordingly, it amounted to wrongful withholding of the property of the company and is thus actionable under section 630 of the Companies Act. 12. In the light of the above discussion, there being no illegality or infirmity with the impugned order of conviction and sentence, the present revisional application being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 13. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed. 14. 12. In the light of the above discussion, there being no illegality or infirmity with the impugned order of conviction and sentence, the present revisional application being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 13. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed. 14. The period of delivery of vacant possession of the quarter by the petitioner to O.P.No.1 Company is extended for a period of one month from date, failing which the petitioner shall suffer imprisonment for the period as ordered by the learned Court below. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent down at once to the learned Court below. 16. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Revisional application dismissed.