1.0 Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner hereinoriginal accused to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC, Dwarka dated 11.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 530 of 1999 convicting the petitioner for the offences under Section 630 of the Companies Act as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya dated 31.3.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011, by which, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
2.0 The facts leading to the present Criminal Revision Application in nutshell are as under:
2.1. That the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner original accused for the offences under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act for retaining the quarter allotted by the company illegally. That by judgment and order dated 11.10.2010, the learned JMFC, Dwarka held the petitioner guilty for the offneces under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act and imposed the punishment of fine of Rs.10,000/ in default to undergo six months S.I. The aforesaid order came to be passed under Section 630(1) of the Companies Act. That the learned JMFC further passed order under Section 630(2) of the Companies Act granting two months time to the petitioner accused to vacate the premises i.e. quarter no.15, failing which directing the petitioner to undergo sentence of two years S.I. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Dwarka passed in Criminal Case No. 530 of 1999, the petitioner original accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011 before the learned Sessions Court, Khambhaliya and the learned Appellate Court learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya by impugned judgment and order had dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. However, directed the petitioneraccused to handover the possession of the quarter no.15 on or before 30.6.2012.
2.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner herein original accused has preferred Criminal Revision Application on 28.6.2012, which was circulated for admission hearing on 29.6.2012. However, learned Single Judge passed an order “Not before me” and therefore, matter was required to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to place it before another learned Single Judge and in the meantime and before any further order could be obtained by the petitioner, time granted by the learned Sessions Court to handover the possession has expired as learned Appellate Court granted time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question on or before 30.6.2012.
2.3. It is reported that the petitioner has already handed over and / or surrendered the possession of the disputed property in question on 13.7.2012. Therefore, it is requested to consider the same and extend the time granted by the learned Appellate Court to surrender the premises in question till 13.7.2012 i.e. till the petitioner surrendered the possession of the disputed property in question so that the petitioner is not required to undergo sentence of 2 years R.I as ordered by the learned Magistrate. Shri Dagli, learned advocate for the applicant has stated at the bar that petitioner has already paid fine imposed by the learned trial Court.
3.0 Shri V.K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and has confirmed that the petitioner has already surrendered the possession of the quarter in question to the respondent no.2 company on 13.7.2012. Therefore, he has stated at the bar that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case if time to surrender the possession of the quarter in question is extended till 30.7.2012 so that the petitioner may not have to undergo the sentence, he has no objection.
4.0 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts stated hereinabove and the fact that the petitioner was bona fidely prosecuting the present revision application and, in fact filed present revision application on 28.6.2012, however, due to the circumstances stated hereinabove he could not obtain any further interim order from this Court as after 29.6.2012 the matter came to be listed for admission hearing for the first time on 24.8.2012 and in the meantime the petitioner has already surrendered the possession of the quarter, it appears to the Court that if impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is modified to the extent of extending the time to surrender and / or handover the possession of the quarter in question on 14.7.2012, it will meet ends of justice so that the petitioner is not required to undergo sentence of 2 years R.I as ordered by the learned Magistrate / learned trial Court.
5.0 Under the circumstances, present application is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya dated 31.3.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011 is modified to the extent extending time to vacate and / or handover the quarter in question to the original complainant ( as mentioned in para 3 of the operative portion of the judgment and order ) to 14.7.2012. Meaning thereby in view of the above, the petitioner is now not required to undergo sentence under Section 630 of the Companies Act as ordered by the learned JMFC, Dwarka in the impugned order dated 11.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.530 of 1999. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
“kaushik”
sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )