1. 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 v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. 1988 63 Comp Cas 1 (SC) overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha 1987 61 Comp Cas 211, as to the scope and effect of sub-section (1) of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court in Baldev Krishna Sahs case 1988 63 Comp Cas 1(SC) overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha 1987 61 Comp Cas 211, as to the scope and effect of sub-section (1) of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court in Baldev Krishna Sahis case 1988 63 Comp Cas 1 (SC) has placed a beneficent construction on the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 630 of theand, 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 an 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 clause (b) thereof qualify the words "any property of a company appearing in clause (A). As observed in Baldev Krishna Sahis case 1988 63 Comp Cas 1(SC), section 630 of theplainly 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, 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(1) (b) of the. The construction placed by this court in Baldev Krishna Sahis case 1988 63 Comp Cas 1 (SC) is the only construction possible. There is therefore on warrant to give a restrictive meaning of the term " officer or employee" appearing in sub-section (1) of section 630 of theas meaning only the existing officers and employees and not hose whose employments have been terminated. The court in Baldev Krishna Sahis case has expressly overruled the judgment of the Calcutta High court in Amrit Lal chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha 1987 61 Comp Cas 211, 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 case: see Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani v. Achyut Kashinath Wagh 1982 52 Comp Cas 1 (Bom) and Govind T. Jagtiani v. Sirajuddin S. Kazi 1984 56 Comp cas 329 (Bom).Accordingly, these appeals must succeed an 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.

2. 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, pay 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 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 of 1983 in the court of IIIrd Additional judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas, and complaint case No. 2788 of 1984 in the Court of the Special divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas, shall continue. In the event of the respondents failure to file the undertaking and or vacate the premises within the time specified, the learned magistrates shall proceed with the trial of these cases and dispose of them as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than October 31, 1988.

3. The intervention application filed by Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. is a not pressed.

4. Appeal allowed.