Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.@mdashBoth the revisionists have been convicted under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 922000. Both of them preferred appeals which was dismissed on 2432001 by XVIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut with some modification. Hence both the revisions are disposed of by a common order.
2. Heard Sri Kamal Kishor Misra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.
3. The revisionist Ramesh Datt Ojha was employed as Attendant in cutter machine in opposite party No. 2 Mill. His father was also an employer in Mill opposite party No. 2. His father was employed as clerk and his father was allotted''quarter No. 36 B/1. His father retired on 3151986 and ultimately died on 13121988. The revisionist is in unauthorised occupation of the quarter after the death of his father. The revisionist, Dina Nath, was employed in Mill opposite party No. 2 as Finisher. He was allotted Quarter No. L11, Mehta Colony. On 2611986 he resigned from service. Thereafter he has not vacated the quarter and he is in unauthorised occupation thereof.
4. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court found that the revisionist Ramesh Datt Ojha and Dina Nalh are in unauthorised occupation of the quarter in their possession. The trial Court held the revisionists guilty under Section 630 of the Companies Act. Both the revisionists were ordered to vacate the quarter and deliver the possession to opposite parly, failing which they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The revisionists were further sentenced to pay fine Rs. 100/ per month from 13121988 and 2711986 respectively. The appellate Court while maintaining conviction and sentence ordered that out of the fine Rs. 80/ per month will be paid to Mill opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 20/ will be paid to the State. Both the revisionists were ordered to vacate the quarter within a month. The revisionist Ramesh Datt has contended that since he continued living in the quarter allotted to his father and since maintenance allowance was given to him it should be presumed that the quarter was allotted to him. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have considered the evidence on record and has found that there is no written allotment order in favour of the revisionist and that his occupation of the quarter is unauthorised. Both the Courts have given reasons in arriving at that finding. The said finding cannot be said to be incorrect, illegal and improper. The contention of revisionist, Dina Nath is that he was forcibly made to sign a blank paper for his resignation. His contention did not find support by any evidence, as found by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have held that the occupation of the revisionist Dina Nath in the quarter is unauthorised. The above finding is based on the evidence on record and the same cannot be said to be incorrect, illegal and improper.
5. The above findings that both the revisionists are in unauthorised occupation of the quarter in their possession calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The appellate Court in exercise of the powers given under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has distributed the amount of fine between both the opposite parties. Subsection (1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. The exercise of power under the above section in awarding the compensation to opposite party No. 1 also is legal and calls tor no interference. It has been contended next that the amount of fine which can be imposed under Section 630 of the Companies Act may extend to Rs. 1,000/ only and as such, sentence of fine imposed on the revisionists is not legal.
7. In case of Kannankandi Gopal Krishna Nair v. Prakash Chunder Juneja and others, 1993 (67) FLR 541, it has been held that the wrongful with holding of the premises by the accused from month to month will constitute a recurrence of the offence from month to month. In this case the Court ordered that the accused would be liable to fine a sum of Rs. 1,000/ per month. It has also been held that wrongful withholding of the quarter is a continuing offence and, as such, the employee is liable to fine from month to month during the entire such period.
8. The contention of Dina Nath that since a writ petition is pending before this Court in connection with his service he cannot be evicted from the quarter is also unsustainable. InAtulMathurv.AtulKalra and another, 1990 (60) FLR 20 (Sum), which was also a case under Section 630 of the Companies Act, it has been held that merely because a Civil Suit is filed the Criminal Court is not debarred from proceeding with the complaint.
9. In view of the above discussion the revisions have got no force and are liable, to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. The stay orders, dated 442001, in both the revisions are vacated.
Revisions dismissed.
