1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2589 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 422 OF 2009 Mr. Ajay Joshi. ... Petitioner. V/s. Indian Forge & Drop Stamping Ltd. and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. H.G. Misar for the Petitioner. Mr. P.J. Pawar for the Respondent. Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No.525 of 2009 is under challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The First Respondent filed a complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The Criminal Revision Application was directed against an order dated 4th August 2009 in Criminal Case No.224 of 2009, whereby the learned Trial Judge has directed the Petitioner – Accused to return property referred in the Application at Exhibit 3. 3. It is a common ground that the First Respondent was the employer and the Petitioner was an employee. It is the case 2 of the complainant/company that despite leaving the services of the company, the Petitioner – Accused has wrongfully retained and withheld the property more particularly described in the application. Therefore, the complaint was filed. The complaint is being tried but during the same, it was held by the Trial Court on an Application made to it, that the company is entitled to the return of the properties. 4. Against this order, the Revision Application was filed. The learned Revisional Court held that the company has partly proved the entitlement to the properties and therefore, partly allowed Revision Application. In paragraph 8 of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Revisional Court), he has referred to the fact that the Petitioner – Accused himself admitted the custody of property at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the application at Exhibit 3. This property is two cars in the registered in the name of the company. The Revisional Court held that the record indicates that it was never the case of the Petitioner that he was entitled to retain these vehicles even after the termination of the services or the contract of service coming to an end. Therefore, he is wrongfully withholding the vehicles. He is not entitled to use of these cars and could not have therefore retained them is the conclusion. 5. The order of the Trial Court has been modified to the extent of the other properties. After taking instructions, Mr. Pawar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant states that as far as the property at Serial Nos.3 3 to 5 of the Application at Exhibit 3 is concerned, the company is not pressing for return thereof at this stage. 6. When this Application/Writ Petition placed before this Court, after hearing the Petitioner, this Court directed as and by way of ad-interim order that the Petitioner shall deposit the cars with the Trial Court within the period of two weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter, notice to the Company has been issued and Mr. Pawar appears on behalf of the Original Complainant/First Respondent to the Petition. 7. I have heard Mr. Misar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Pawar on behalf of the First Respondent. Mr. Misar, in all fairness, states that all vehicles are lying with the J.M.F.C, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune. The trial in the subject complaint is going on. Therefore, it would be open for the First Respondent – Complainant to apply for return of these vehicles and the learned Magistrate shall decide such an application, if made, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks from the date of its institution. The learned Magistrate will hear both sides and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. In view of the order passed in this Writ Petition, the Application No. 422 of 2009 does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)