N Criminal Appeal No 368 of 1986
From the Judgment and order dated 1141986 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl 
No  1181 of 1985 
WITH Criminal Appeals Nos 251 252 of 1986
From the Judgment and order dated 2671975 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl
222 and 448 of 1985
Dr YS Chitale and HK Puri for the Appellant
Parijat Sinha for the Respondent in Crl
A No 368 of 1986
SK Kapur Ranjan Dev and Mrs Indra Sawhney for the Respondents in Crl
A No 251 252 of 1986
Tapas Roy and DK Sinha for the State of West Bengal
DK Sinha KR Nambiar Ms Reba Roy KK Lahitri and Ms Apsi Ditta for the Interveners
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R After hearing Shri SK Kapoor learned counsel appearing for respondent No 1 in Criminal Appeals Nos
251 252 of 1986 at quite some length we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed by this Court in the recent judgment in Baldev Krishna Sahi vs Shipping Corporation of India Ltd  Anr  1987 4 SCC 361 overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal Chum vs Devi Ranjan Jha as to the scope and effect of sub section
1 of section 630 of the 
The Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi s case has placed a beneficent construction on the provisions contained in sub section
1 of section 630 of the Act 785 and according to it the term officer or employee  in sub section
1 of section 630 must be interpreted to mean not only the present officers and employees of a company but also to include the past officers and employees of the Company
It has also taken the view that the words any such property  in cl
b thereof qualify the words any property of a company  appearing in cl
As observed in Baldev Krishna Sahi s case section 630 of the Act plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee of a company who was permitted to use the property of the company during his employment wrongfully retains or occupies the same after the termination of his employment
It is the wrongful withholding of such property meaning the property of the company after termination of the employment which is an offence under section 630lb of the Act
The construction placed by this Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi s case is the only construction possible
There is therefore no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the term officer or employee  appearing in sub section
1 of section 630 of the Act as meaning only the existing officers and employees and not those whose employment have been terminated
The Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi s case has expressly overruled the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal Chum vs Devi Ranjan Jha supra against which these appeals have been filed and upheld the consistent view to the contrary taken by the High Court of Bombay in a series of cases
See Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani vs Achyut Kashinath Wagh and Govind T Jagtiani vs Sirajuddin section Kazi Accordingly these appeals must succeed and are allowed with costs
The judgment of the High Court allowing the applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 are set aside
Shri SK Kapoor learned counsel appearing for respondent No 1 in Criminal Appeals Nos 251 252 of 1986 and Shri Parijat Sinha learned counsel for respondent No 1 in Criminal Appeal No 368 of 1986 pray for time to vacate the premises in their occupation
We grant the respondents time till June 30 1988 to vacate the premises subject to their furnishing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today
If there is a failure on the part of the respondents to comply with these conditions namely failure to file the said undertaking andor to vacate the premises within the time allowed the cases against them ie Complaint Case No 105383 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Magistrate Alipore 24 Paraganas and Complaint Case No 278884 in the Court of Special Divisional Judicial Magistrate Alipore 24 Paraganas shall continue
In the event of respondents  failure to file the undertaking andor vacate the premises within 786 the time specified the learned Magistrates shall proceed with the trial of these cases and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than October 31 1988
The intervention application filed by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited is not pressed
N PV Appeals allowed


Summary:
 The appellant raised the question as regards the determination of age of the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court in these Special Leave Petitions filed against the Judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing in limine the Writ Appeals against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petitions by a Single Judge of the High Court
ln the course of the proceedings this Court on January 8 1988 made certain queries to which the Additional Solicitor General furnished information broadly on the following lines That a view in the matter will be taken by the President of India after the advice of Chief Justice of India is made available and that all relevant files have been submitted to the Chief Justice of India along with the opinion as to the effect of the judgment pronounced by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
In view of the information made available this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and  HELD 1
The matter as to the age of the retired Chief Justice or a sitting Judge of a High Court is a judicial function of the President of India which has to be discharged in accordance with the special provisions made under Article 2l73 of the Constitution
730C D 2
Such a question as to the age of the Chief Justice or a Judge under Article 2173 of the Constitution is beyond the reach of the Council of Ministers under Article 74 of the Constitution
730D E Union of India vs Jyoti Prakosh Mitter  197 l  3 SCR 483 followed
729 3
Since the President of India in compliance with Article 2l73 has referred the question as to the age of Shri K Bhaskaran Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court to the Chief Justice of India for his opinion no Writ of Mandamus can lie
730B 4
The President of India as a constitutional functionary has discharged his duties under Article 2173 and the decision must rest on the advice of the Chief Justice of India and not the Council of Ministers
730C