Skip to content


In Re: K. Sundaresa Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Petn. Nos. 646 and 703 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad657
ActsCompanies Act, 1913 - Sections 282A
AppellantIn Re: K. Sundaresa Aiyar
Appellant AdvocateS. Krishnamurthi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAsst. Public Prosecutor
Excerpt:
- .....seems to me that under section 66, evidence act it is not obligatory to summon production of the original notice. the magistrate's view that the non-summoning of the original notice would make a copy of it inadmissible cannot be right.2. even otherwise the petitioner filed o. s. no. 193 of 1949 on the file of the district munsif's court, kumbakonam, for the recovery of rs. 292 from the company and he obtained a decree for the amount claimed with costs making the same a first charge on the very same movable items which the petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully retained. in view of that, there can be no doubt that the sum of rs. 294-5-0 was actually due to the petitioner, and if for the amount due to him which the management of the company did not pay, he retained with him-self.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Govinda Menon, J.

1. The petitioner was a promoter-director of a company by name Chandra and Company, which was the managing agent of the Hind Commonwealth Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam. The case against him was under S. 282-A, Companies Act, in that he wrongfully kept possession of articles belonging to the company of which he was a manager director or a servant. The defence of the petitioner was that a sum of Rs. 294-5-0 was due to him as arrears of salary etc., for which he had issued a registered notice to the directors of the company, as is sought to be proved by the certified copy of that notice, Ex. D-8. The learned Magistrate refused to admit Ex. D 8 in evidence on the ground that the original had not been summoned. When a document sought to be summoned is itself a notice sent by one party to the other and a copy of the notice is produced by the sender, it seems to me that under Section 66, Evidence Act it is not obligatory to summon production of the original notice. The Magistrate's view that the non-summoning of the original notice would make a copy of it inadmissible cannot be right.

2. Even otherwise the petitioner filed O. S. No. 193 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kumbakonam, for the recovery of Rs. 292 from the company and he obtained a decree for the amount claimed with costs making the same a first charge on the very same movable items which the petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully retained. In view of that, there can be no doubt that the sum of Rs. 294-5-0 was actually due to the petitioner, and if for the amount due to him which the management of the company did not pay, he retained with him-self certain movables of the company, it cannot be said that his action is one which is wrongful, as contemplated in Section 282-A. I am therefore of opinion that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are illegal.

3. The conviction and sentence are therefore set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. Fine, If paid, will be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //