Bimal Chand vs D.C.M.Limited

Mrs. Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

In this Criminal Revision the petitioner is impugning the order dated June 14, 1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, whereby he has allowed complainantrespondent's application for issuance of warrant of arrest of the petitioner as he failed to hand over vacant possession of the occupied property.

The factual matrix of the case is that respondentD.C.M. Limited was running a Textile Mill at Hisar. It constructed residential colony for its workers. Workers were allotted quarters in this Colony. One such quarter was allotted to the petitioner. On termination of the employment, the worker was to vacate the quarter. When the company was closed, the petitioner's services were terminated and he was directed to deliver vacant possession of the quarter allotted to him to the company, but the petitioner failed to comply with the said notice. Hence the residentcompany filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.

After full trial, the trial Magistrate held the charge proved against the petitioner and he was ordered to pay Rs. 750/ as fine, failing which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and further he was ordered to surrender vacant possession of the quarter occupied by him within 30 days to the complainant, failing which he shall suffer imprisonment for one year. This order was passed on November 30, 1993.

The petitioner filed an appeal against that judgment, but was unsuccessful. Then he filed Criminal Revision No. 816 of 1996 in this Court. It was decided on April 29, 1997. His Lordship, V.S. Aggarwal, J. held that more than a decade had expired but the petitioner had not vacated the quarter allotted to him by the company. Repelling the contentions raised before the High Court, the revision was dismissed. The petitioner was given 15 days time to vacate the property. The petitioner filed SLP No. 1612 of 1997 in the Apex Court on March 15, 1997, which was dismissed on May 27, 1997.

That on May 23, 1997, the respondentcompany filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner as he had failed to deliver vacant possession of the occupied property.

The petitioner surrendered before the Court on June 12, 1997, and alleged that he has already handed over the key of the quarter on May 14, 1997, to the securityman of D.C.M. Limited and has not disobeyed the order of the High Court. The complainant filed reply to that application filed by the accused petitioner. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that it seems that he has taken a false plea that he handed over the key of the quarter to the gatekeeper of the factory on May 14, 1997, and thus passed the impugned order rejecting his prayer for bail. That order is challenged in this revision.

On July 21, 1997, the respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner has not yet delivered vacant possession of the quarter to the company. For that purpose interim bail was granted to the petitioner with a direction that now he should deliver possession of the quarter to the respondent. Today the respondent's counsel has submitted documents showing that on July 22, 1997, the petitioner has surrendered possession of the quarter to the company. Few articles clothes, cycle and a cot, were found lying in the quarter, which were taken away by the petitioner. From these documents it is evident that the quarter was locked from outside but it was open from the back side. Even the electric meter was found running.

Petitioner's learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not residing in this quarter. He had already vacated it and the articles found therein do not belong to the petitioner.

This argument is not tenable at all. Whether the petitioner was personally residing in this quarter or not is not relevant for the decision of this case. The question was of possession and not of actual living therein. No application or affidavit is filed by the petitioner that the articles which were found lying in the quarter do not belong to him. If really those articles were not belonging to the petitioner, he would not have taken them in his custody. Thus, it is apparent that till July 22, 1997, the said quarter was in possession of the petitioner and he took a false plea that on May 14, 1997, he had handed over the key of the said quarter to the gatekeeper of the factory. Had it been so, in the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate he would have filed the affidavit of the gatekeeper to prove his plea.

Indisputably the petitioner is in custody since June 12, 1997. In between, for three days, as per order dated July 21, 1997, he was released on bail. After delivering possession of the quarter, he has surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and is now again in the jail.

In my considered view, by now the petitioner has suffered imprisonment for about a month. This term of imprisonment is sufficient for him to realise within himself as to why he deliberately failed to comply with the order of the High Court. It will also be an eyeopener for others who in such a way contrive to flout the orders of the High Court feigning their innocence. While disposing of the petition, it is ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith.