1. By making this application under section 482, Cr.PC, the petitioner, who accused in Complaint Case No. 2569c/200G, presently pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, has sought for, inter alia, setting aside and quashing the proceedings of the said Complaint Case including the order, dated 21.5.2007, passed, in the case aforementioned, whereby the learned Court below has directed that the Complaint Case aforementioned would proceed against the present petitioner as accused. 2. The facts, leading to the present application made under section 482, Cr.PC, are, in brief, thus : (i) While the petitioner was discharging his duties as a workman in Hapjan Tea Estate, he was dismissed from service by the complainant-opposite party No. 1 herein by order, dated 16.3.2006. An industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner as a workman and the dispute, so raised, led to the making of a reference by the State Government, under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, by notification, dated 1.12.2006, The reference, so made, reads as under : "Whether the management of Hapjan T.E. is justified in not seeking permission under section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before issuing order of dismissal of the workman Sri Swapan Kr. Bhattacharjee w.e.f. 16.03.2006 ? If not, whether the impugned dismissal order be held illegal contrary to the provisions of section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?" (ii) After the above reference was made, the opposite-party No. 1 herein filed a complaint for prosecution of the present petitioner as accused under section 630 of the Companies Act. The learned Court below took cognizance of offence under section 630 of the Companies Act and accordingly issued process against the petitioner as accused. c The petitioner resisted his criminal prosecution on the ground, inter alia, that under rule 66 of the Assam Plantation Labour Rules, 1956, his criminal prosecution is impermissible so long as the dispute, pending in the Industrial Tribunal, is not anally disposed of. The learned court below did not, however, accede to the objection, so raised by the petitioner, and decided, by order, dated 21.5.2007, aforementioned to proceed with the complaint case. Aggrieved by the decision, so taken by the learned Court below, the petitioner is, now, before this court with the help of the present application made under section 482, CrPC. 3. I have heard Mr. Aggrieved by the decision, so taken by the learned Court below, the petitioner is, now, before this court with the help of the present application made under section 482, CrPC. 3. I have heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. A. Sarma, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 4. While considering the present criminal petition, it is necessary to take note of the provisions of section 630 of the Companies Act. Section 630 reads as under : "630. Penalty for wrongful withholding of property. - (1) If any officer or employee of a Company - (a) Wrongfully obtained possession of any property of a company; or (b) Having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholding it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorized by this Act; he shall, on the complaint of the Company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to Ten thousand rupees. (2) The court trying the offence, may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the court, any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowing misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years." 5. From a careful reading of section 630 of the Companies Act, what transpires is that even when a person comes into possession of a property lawfully, but continues to hold it wrongfully, then, he is liable for prosecution, under section 630, for wrongfully withholding the property. Thus, sine qua non for prosecution of a person, under section 630, is that either he be accused of having wrongfully obtained possession of a property of a company or, having lawfully come into possession of such a property, be accused of withholding the property wrongfully. 6. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, let me, now, consider Rule 66 of the Assam Plantation Labour Rules, 1956 which reads as under : "66. Occupation of accommodation after termination of employment. 6. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, let me, now, consider Rule 66 of the Assam Plantation Labour Rules, 1956 which reads as under : "66. Occupation of accommodation after termination of employment. -(1) When a worker dies in service of the employer, or retires or goes on transfer, or resigns or goes on leave or when his services are terminated he or his family may retain the house up to the period as detailed below - (1) In case of death, transfer, termination of service, retirement or resignation, a period not exceeding two months; (ii) In case of leave, for the period of leave; and (iii) In case where the discharge of a worker is disputed and the matter has been taken to an Industrial Tribunal or Court, for so long as the case is not finally disposed of. (2) If a worker fails to vacate the house on the expiry of the period mentioned above and continue to occupy the same when no member of his family is working he shall be liable to pay to the employer such rent at a rate not exceeding 10 per cent of his wages as may be fixed by the Chief Inspector of Plantations on the advice of the Housing Advisory Board, for the entire period of his unauthorized occupation." 7. Clause (iii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 66 clearly shows that where the discharge of a worker has been disputed and the matter has been taken to an industrial tribunal for adjudication, the worker may retain the house/residential quarter so long as the case is not finally disposed of. There is no dispute before me that as an incidence of his employment, the present petitioner had been in occupation of a labour quarter in the said tea estate. The petitioner, thus, came into possession of the said residential quarter/house lawfully. Since the dismissal/discharge of the petitioner is, now, a subject-matter of determination before the industrial tribunal, the occupation of the house/residential quarter by the petitioner is protected under rule 66 (1)(iii) and this protection would continue until the industrial tribunal decides the reference made to it by the Government. Consequently, so long as the reference is not disposed of, the petitioner's occupation or possession of the said house/ residential quarter cannot be treated wrongful or illegal. 8. Consequently, so long as the reference is not disposed of, the petitioner's occupation or possession of the said house/ residential quarter cannot be treated wrongful or illegal. 8. What logically follows from the above discussion is that when the complainant/opposite-party lodged the complaint, in question, on 29.12.2006, Rule 66 aforementioned protected the occupation of the said house/residential quarter by the petitioner. In such circumstances, no offence could have been held to have been committed by the petitioner and he could not have been prosecuted under section 630 of b the Companies Act. Considered thus, it is clear that in the case at hand, not only taking cognizance of offence under section 630 was bad in law, but even the impugned order, dated 21.05.2007, run contrary to the clear provisions of the law contained in that behalf. 9. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this Criminal Petition succeeds. The impugned order, dated 21.05.2007, is hereby set aside and, in consequence thereof, the complaint case lodged against the petitioner stands quashed. The complainant-opposite party shall, however, remain at liberty to institute appropriate criminal proceedings on determination of the reference, in question, by the industrial tribunal, if the facts of the case so warrant. 10. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall stand disposed of.