JUDGMENT : The petitioners have been convicted in C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008/ T.R. No. 901 of 2016 under section 630 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. 2. By the order of sentence dated 05.04.2016, they have been sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also directed them to vacate Quarter No. A/22, PO&PS-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad within 30 days. 3. In C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008, they were convicted along with Ram Nagina Singh who was an employee of M/s Jharia Firebricks & Pottery Works (P) Ltd. 4. The judgment passed in C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008 has been challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2016 which has been dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 18.07.2016. 5. C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008 was instituted by M/s Jharia Firebricks Private Ltd. against Ram Nagina Singh, Arun Singh and Surendra Singh. Ram Nagina Singh was an employee of the complainant-company who was allotted Quarter No. A/20 for his occupation in course of his employment. The complainant has averred that he was the trusted employee of the company and, therefore, he was requested to keep a watch on the company’s other quarter near his Quarter No. A/20. Accordingly, he was looking after the company’s Quarter No. A/22 in which he entered possession during the period of lockout and in his connivance Arun Singh and Surendra Singh who are his nephew have also entered wrongful possession of Quarter No. A/22. When inspite of requests Ram Nagina Singh did not hand over possession of Quarter No. A/20, Complaint Case being C.P. Case No. 944 of 2004 was instituted against him under section 630 of the Companies Act in respect of Quarter No. A/20. The present complaint case was instituted when the accused persons did not vacate Quarter No. A/22. During the trial the complainant has examined two witnesses; C.W.1 is the Director of the company and C.W.2 is an employee of the company. The letter dated 18.12.1974 written by the Director of the complainant-company to Ram Nagina Singh has been proved and marked through C.W.1 as exhibit-6. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on the basis of the materials laid before him has held thus: “14. The letter dated 18.12.1974 written by the Director of the complainant-company to Ram Nagina Singh has been proved and marked through C.W.1 as exhibit-6. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on the basis of the materials laid before him has held thus: “14. It appears from the record that M/s Jharia Firebricks is a private limited company duly incorporated Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Ext.10). Complainant Ajay Agrawalla is one of the director of the company and he has authorized by the company for filing the case. Deceased Ram Nagina Singh was the employee of M/s Jharia Firebricks & Pottery Works (P) Ltd and accused Surendra Singh and Arun Singh are nephew of the Ram Nagina Singh. Complainant has filed document with regard to authorization (Ext.1). Quarter number A/22 is the property of the company (Ext.-4, 5, 5/1, 5/2, 9). Both accused persons are unlawfully retained the said quarter without allotment to him. Section 630 of the companies act also covered their legal heirs and representatives of the employee concerned, continuing in occupation of the property of the company after the death of the employee. Both have failed to show his bona-fide reason for such withholding. Admittedly both accused persons were not a employee of the Company nor the Company has authorized him to remain in possession of the same. According to the evidence, both accused persons come in possession in quarter number A/22 by the order of Ram Nagina Singh, who was uncle of both accused persons. After service of notice Ram Nagina Singh and his nephews never vacated the possession of the Company’s quarter and wrongful withholding of the property of the Company (Ext.-2, 3, 3/1, 7). The accused by having wrongfully withheld the possession of the Company’s quarter and not delivering the property to the Company, have committed an offence u/s 630 of the Company Act. Thus, complainant of this case has been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.” 7. The appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners holding thus: “19. Thus, complainant of this case has been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.” 7. The appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners holding thus: “19. Under the circumstances and in view of the findings as recorded herein above, this court is of the opinion that the complainant/ respondent no.2 had been able to prove its case for the offence u/s 630 of the Companies Act against the present appellants/accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned court below and as such the same is hereby upheld. The sentence passed by the learned court below against the present appellants/accused persons also appears to be just and proper in view of the nature of the offence, which requires no interference at all.” 8. Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 reads as under: “Penalty for wrongful withholding of property.- (1) If any officer or employee of a company.- (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or (b) having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised 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 knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.” 9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the complainant-company has contended that if an employee of the company who has come in possession of the company’s property does anything in consequence of which his legal heir or other members of his family or any person not even connected with his family comes into possession of the company’s property through him shall be liable under section 630 of the Companies Act for wrongful possession of the company’s property. In support of his submission, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment in “Lalita Jalan and Another Vs. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. and Others” reported in (2003) 6 SCC 107 . 10. In support of his submission, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment in “Lalita Jalan and Another Vs. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. and Others” reported in (2003) 6 SCC 107 . 10. A glance at the averments in C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008 would reveal that the petitioners who are nephew of Ram Nagina Singh were not the employee of the complainant-company. According to the complainant-company, the petitioners in connivance with Ram Nagina Singh who was requested to look after Quarter No. A/22 came in wrongful possession of the property and even after request did not vacate the quarter. During the trial, the complainant has not led any evidence which would disclose that the petitioners are claiming under Ram Nagina Singh or that they have entered possession of the quarter in question in connivance with Ram Nagina Singh. The case sought to be argued on behalf of the complainant that Ram Nagina Singh connived with the petitioners and thus has committed an act in consequence of which the petitioners have obtained wrongful possession of Quarter No. A/22 has not been established during the trial. Both the witnesses examined by the complainant have not claim their personal knowledge of such facts. Both the courts below have committed a serious error in law on this count. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and having examined records of C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008, I find that the complainant has failed to prove that the petitioners have committed offence under section 630 of the Companies Act and, accordingly, the judgment and sentence, both dated 05.04.2016, passed in C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008 are set-aside. 12. Consequently, judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2016 is set-aside. 13. Mr. Sabyasanchi, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that Quarter No. A/22 has been vacated by the petitioners. 14. This fact is affirmed by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the complainant-company. 15. In the above facts, Criminal Revision No. 1325 of 2016 is allowed, however, it is clarified that this judgment shall not give a right in the petitioners to enter possession of Quarter No. A/22, M/s Jharia Fire Bricks Pvt. Ltd., PO&PS-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad, on the grounds which were raised by them in the present proceedings. 16. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.