IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4 OF 2008 MR. CHANDRAKANT D. TARI (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Petitioner Versus M/S. D. B. BANDODKAR AND SONS LTD AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. A. D. Bhobe,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 2. Mr.J.Godinho, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. Date:- 8th February, 2008 P.C. Heard. The learned Advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners are present in person in the Court and have instructed to file their undertaking. In the course of hearing of the matter, pursuant to the certain settlement stated to have arrived at between the parties, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed on record the undertaking by the petitioners that they would vacate the flat and remove all their belongings from the flat in question and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent No.1 on or before 7th August, 2008. The Advocate for the respondent No.1, having agreed to the undertaking, has made endorsement on behalf of said respondent on the said undertaking. The petitioner No.1 husband was the employee of respondent No.1 and he was allowed to occupy the flat in question. On his death, the petitioners, who are the family members of the original petitioner No.1 continued to occupy the flat, and did not vacate the same solely on the ground that they do not have alternate premises to occupy. Consequently, various proceedings were initiated including complaint U/s.360 of the Companies Act before the J.M.F.C. wherein the petitioners came to be convicted. Against the said order of conviction, the petitioners filed an appeal, however, there was delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.1.2008. It is also informed that a suit for mesne profits have also been decreed by the trial Court. Since the parties herein have arrived at amicable settlement and the petitioners have also submitted the undertaking to which the respondent No.1 has agreed, the same has been taken on record. In view of the said undertaking, time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the suit flat till 7th August, 2008. Though in view of settlement arrived at between the parties on condonation of delay, the matter, in normal circumstances, will be required to be remanded to the Lower Appellate Court to pass appropriate order, in relation to the conviction of the petitioners; however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the undertaking given by the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for the exercise of powers u/s.Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and to quash and set aside the conviction. It is not in dispute that it is solely on account of unavailability of alternate accommodation that the petitioners continued to occupy the flat premises even after the statutory period within which they were required to vacate the premises. There was no intention to cause any loss or to deny the right of the Employer to get the vacant possession consequent to death of his employee. In such circumstances, therefore, and in view of willingness on the part of the respondent to allow the petitioners to continue to occupy the premises till 6th August,2008 I find that this is a fit case for condoning the delay in challenging the impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and further to quash the sentence imposed on the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the delay in challenging the order passed by the Magistrate, is hereby condoned. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner in Criminal case No.75/AO/2000/A by the J.M.F.C.,Ponda is hereby quashed and set aside subject to condition that the petitioners shall vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the flat in question to the respondent No.1 on or before 7th August, 2008. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to vacate the premises as stated above, this order shall automatically stands recalled and the Criminal Writ Petition shall stand restored to the board without any further order being necessary. In the circumstances, it is also necessary for the parties to file a compliance report regarding the undertaking given by the petitioners. Such a compliance report should be filed within 3 weeks from 7th August, 2008, failing which the Registry shall restore the Criminal Writ Petition No.4/2008 to the board and shall list the same before the Court on 5th September, 2008. Even otherwise, the same should be listed on 5th September, 2008 to take note of the compliance report. The petition stands, accordingly, disposed of. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. SMA