JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. The revision petition is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2013 whereby the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in Criminal Case No. 146/2010 has been affirmed. 3. The case of the petitioner briefly stated is that he was occupying a residential quarter No. 281, Line No. 9 of the Heeleakha Tea Estate as a incidental to his job being a permanent employee in the said Tea Estate. The petitioner was superannuated on 31.12.2008 but as the quarter was not vacated, the respondent authority lodged a complaint case on 19.05.2010 being C.R. Case No. 146/2010 under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short, the Act of 1956) to evict the petitioner from the said quarter. 4. In the said complaint petition, the respondent authority alleged that though the petitioner was asked to vacate the quarter as per verbal instructions but as it was not acted upon by the petitioner, the legal notice was also served twice upon the petitioner and as the petitioner did not response to the notice service upon him, so ultimately, the complaint was filed by the authorised person of the Company. 5. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 630 of the Act of 1956 and after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties has held the accused petitioner guilty under Section 630 of the Act of 1956 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, RI for one year with further direction to vacate the quarter within one month from the date of judgment, in default, SI for one month. The appeal so preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of both the learned Courts below, present revision petition has been preferred with a prayer to set aside both the judgment and orders of the learned Courts below. 6. The appeal so preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of both the learned Courts below, present revision petition has been preferred with a prayer to set aside both the judgment and orders of the learned Courts below. 6. Without disputing about the date of superannuation and occupation of the allotted quarter, the petitioner has assailed the judgment basically on the grounds that the cognizance taken by the learned Trial Court on the complaint filed by the Manager of the Heeleakha Tea Estate after a period of two years from the date of his superannuation, is bad in law as the Court is not empowered to take cognizance under Section 468(1) (2) Cr.P.C. being barred by limitation. 7. The next grievance raised by the petitioner is that the power of attorney executed by the complainant is null and void as it was not accompanied by the resolution of the Board of Directors and the Managing Director cannot empower the Manager by way of power of attorney. Further ground of the petitioner is that prosecution failed to prove the fraudulent intention for withholding the property by the petitioner whereas according to him, he had delivered the vacant possession of the quarter five years back and now he resides with his wife in a quarter allotted to her. The last ground for assailing the findings of the learned Courts below that the Company has not yet paid the gratuity amount of the petitioner rather it has been withheld illegally so there cannot be any wrongful withhold of the property on the part of the petitioner and as such conviction and sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are not sustainable. 8. I have considered the submission of Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who has repeated the same contentions as has been taken in this revision petition. 8. I have considered the submission of Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who has repeated the same contentions as has been taken in this revision petition. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a case law of A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharastra & Anr, reported in 2015 STPL (web) 60 SC, wherein it has been held that cognizance of offence by a Magistrate under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiation Instruments Act, 1881, for short, the Act of 1881, and Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. is bad in law without prima-facie establishing the fact as to whether power of attorney existed in the first place and whether it was in order. 9. After going through the said case law, it is obvious that it relates to case under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act of 1881 and there are certain procedures as to who may file the complaint case on behalf of drawee in due course and in the said case, except mere reference about the power of attorney in fact, no power of attorney was filed but the present case in hand is different, which is filed under the Act of 1956 for recovery of the premises from the employee to whom the official quarter so allotted as incidental to his employment. The complainant is the company which owns the Heeleakha Tea Estate where under the petitioner was an employee. One Manager of the said Heeleakha Tea Estate has been authorised as lawful attorney to file the case and the same has been exhibited. 10. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has also relied upon the case law of Automobile Products India Limited v. Das John Peter & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 593 wherein it has been categorically held in paragraph 22 that a criminal complaint seeking possession of the servant quarter at the instance of the Company against the accused was maintainable and in our opinion cognizance thereof was rightly taken by the Magistrate but committed a grave error in rejecting it on technical grounds, instead of deciding it on merits. It has further been discussed in detail that Manager having been authorised by the Company resolution and power of attorney filed complain against the retired employee for wrongful occupying Company quarters is maintainable and cognizance was rightly taken. Discussing about the provision of Section 630 and 621 of the Act of 1956 it has been held that retired employee undisputedly being in wrongful occupation of the Company quarters for more than 18 years and breaching the under taking to vacate the premises and the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Trial Court on the basis of untenable technical ground is not maintainable. 11. The aforesaid observations of the Apex Court is very much relevant for the purpose of this case that a bona fide case of a Company should not be defeated merely because of technical ground, may be the power of attorney was not executed as per Articles of Association of the Company, while undisputedly, the petitioner is still occupying the official allotted quarter even after the superannuation on 31.12.2008. The petitioner herein wilfully disobeyed the direction so made by the complainant Company to vacate the premises without any justifiable ground. 12. From the matters of record as well as the evidence so adduced by both the parties, it is to be noted that the petitioner tried to resist the claim of the complainant Company that he is residing with his wife, who is a permanent employee of the Tea Estate but not in the quarter allotted to him. But the prosecution witnesses has clearly established the fact that the wife of the petitioner is not a permanent employee of the said Tea Estate, neither she was allotted any quarter nor she is entitled for the same. The petitioner even after adducing evidence in the aforesaid case before the learned Trial Court failed to prove his above assertion that he is residing with his wife, in her allotted quarter. 13. On the face of the case of the complainant (which has been properly proved) that the petitioner is not yet vacated the official quarter given to him while during his service, the petitioner take inconsistent plea to evade the responsibility. 13. On the face of the case of the complainant (which has been properly proved) that the petitioner is not yet vacated the official quarter given to him while during his service, the petitioner take inconsistent plea to evade the responsibility. It is to be noted that the plea taken by the petitioner that until and unless his payment of gratuity, etc to be paid by the Company, he is not liable to vacate the quarter is without any foundation of law and facts as well. The petitioner could not cited any provision that under the Act of 1956 that the Company cannot direct the employee to vacate the quarter, until and unless all the dues are paid to the employee concerned. There being no any enabling provision, such contention is devoid of merit. 14. As regards the plea of limitation so raised by the petitioner that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is also lacks merits, because the offence under Section 630 of the Act of 1956 is a continuing offence which has been dealt with by catena of decisions. In the case of Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath & Ors, it has been categorically held at paragraph 26, which is reproduced below: "Applying the law enunciated above to the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act, we are of the view that the offence under this section is not such as can be said to have consummated once for all. Wrongful withholding, or wrongfully obtaining possession and wrongful application of the company's property, that is, for purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles of the company and authorised by the Companies Act, cannot be said to be terminated by a single act or fact but would subsist for the period until the property in the offender's possession is delivered up or refunded. It is an offence committed over a span of time and that last act of the offence will control the commencement of the period of limitation and need be alleged. The offence consists of a course of conduct arising from a singleness of thought, purpose of refusal to deliver up or refund which may be deemed a single impulse. It is an offence committed over a span of time and that last act of the offence will control the commencement of the period of limitation and need be alleged. The offence consists of a course of conduct arising from a singleness of thought, purpose of refusal to deliver up or refund which may be deemed a single impulse. Considered from another angle, it consists of a continuous series of acts which endures after the period of consummation on refusal to deliver up or refund the property. It is not an instantaneous offence and limitation begins with the cessation of the criminal act, i.e., with the delivering up or refund of the propriety. It will be a recurring or continuing offence until the wrongful possession, wrongful withholding or wrongful application is vacated or put an end to. The offence continues until the property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied is delivered up or refunded to the company. For failure to do so sub-section (2) prescribes the punishment. This, in our view, is sufficient ground for holding that the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act is not one time but a continuing offence and the period of limitation must be computed accordingly, and when so done, the instant complaints could not be said to have been barred by limitation. ….." 15. Referring to the decision in the case of State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 890 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1996) 8 SCC 450 has elaborated the meaning of continuing offence in the following manner: "A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and reoccurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues, and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and reoccurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues, and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all." 16. Bearing the above proposition laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court, if I consider the case of the petitioner that he has disobeyed the direction so given by the Company by way of notice, etc. to vacate the quarter since 2009 to 2010 and ultimately the complaint was filed in the year, 2010 after his retirement on 31.12.2008, the same can be termed as a continuous offence in the light of what has been stated in the decision so rendered in Deokaran Nenshi (supra). 17. In the present case, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2008, meaning thereby cause of action will arose from 01.01.2009. It appears that complainant has issued notice upon the respondent (petitioner herein) to vacate the quarter for several times and the categorical reply of the petitioner is that he is residing with his wife in the said quarter as his wife is a permanent worker in the said Tea Estate but he failed to prove the same as has been discussed above. All the pleas taken by the petitioner is nothing but to frustrate the claim of the Company. Being an employee under the Company, he is bound to vacate the quarter and handover to the Company, after his retirement, under which he worked. Instead of doing so, the conduct of the petitioner is not at all justifiable. After taking into consideration all the defences taken by the petitioner, his eviction from the servant quarter is inabitable. He has on the pretext of one after another is withholding the property of the Company with a malafide intention whereas as per the mandate of the Act of 1956, the petitioner is to handover the vacant possession of the property to the Company. 18. He has on the pretext of one after another is withholding the property of the Company with a malafide intention whereas as per the mandate of the Act of 1956, the petitioner is to handover the vacant possession of the property to the Company. 18. Regarding his grievance about non-payment of gratuity, if any, there is proper remedy/alternative remedy to claim such gratuity by filing a complaint before the concerned authority under the relevant provision of concerned Act. 19. In my considered opinion, none of the findings of the learned Court below under challenge needs interference, as all the aspects had been properly discussed by both the learned Court below. There appears no manifest illegality or irregularity in the findings so arrived at by the learned Courts below. 20. Resultantly, the revision petition deserves no merit, and accordingly, it is dismissed. The petitioner is to vacate the quarter within one month from the date of receipt of the order of this Court as was directed by the learned Court below, failing which, the authority may proceed accordingly.