Summarize the following court judgment. N: Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986. From the Judgment and order dated 11.4.1986 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 26.7.1975 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. 222 and 448 of 1985. Dr. Y.S. Chitale and H.K. Puri for the Appellant. Parijat Sinha for the Respondent in Crl. A. No. 368 of 1986. S.K. Kapur	 Ranjan Dev and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the Respondents in Crl. A. No. 251 252 of 1986. Tapas Roy and D.K. Sinha for the State of West Bengal. D.K. Sinha	 K.R. Nambiar	 Ms. Reba Roy	 K.K. Lahitri and Ms Apsi Ditta for the Interveners. The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R After hearing Shri S.K. 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 630(l)(b) 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 S.K. 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 and/or to vacate the premises within the time allowed	 the cases against them i.e. Complaint Case No. 1053/83 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Magistrate	 Alipore	 24 Paraganas and Complaint Case No. 2788/84 in the Court of Special Divisional Judicial Magistrate	 Alipore	 24 Paraganas shall continue. In the event of respondents ' failure to file the undertaking and/or 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. P.V. Appeals allowed.

% Section 630 of the empowers the court	 on the complaint of the Company	 or any creditor or contributory thereof	 to punish an officer or employee of such company	 by levy of fine	 if such officer or employee wrongfully obtains possession of	 or having obtained possession	 wrongfully withholds or knowingly misapplies	 the property of the company	 and also order him to deliver up or refund	 within a stipulated time	 such property or	 in default	 to suffer imprisonment. In these appeals against the Judgment of the High Court	 the question for consideration was as to the scope and interpretation of this provision. E Allowing the appeals	 ^ HELD: Section 630 of the 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 630(l) of the Act. [785B C] 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 has been terminated. [785C D] Baldev Krishna Sahi vs Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr.	 [ 1987} 4 SCC 361	 followed. H 784 [Time granted to respondents till June 30	 1988 to vacate the premises subject to the furnishing of usual undertaking. In the event of failure to furnish the undertaking and/or vacate the premises within the time stipulated	 the cases against the respondents to continue and the trial court to proceed with the trial and dispose them of expeditiously	 but not later than 31.10.88.] [785G H; 786A]