1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C1RCUI':' BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY 01? SEPTEMBER 2008
BEFORE "
THE HOPPBLE MR. JUSTICE (1.12. KUMARASW{3_MY.:44ej'*.:..V
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.362() 014* 200'? 7
BETWEEN:
1 M/ s The Farmer's Coop Sp1'm.ning'Mil1 Ltd.?,_I1; _ " °
Represented by Chairman
Sri.R.N.Deshpande
i2 Sri.R.N.Deshpande C. .
3/0 Napappayyeu Chainiletm ; '
Aged 54
M] s The Far:_f11e.*;'.s'(3oZ9p€ S3j»iI'zfii,:1g'iv1i1§ Ltd. ,
3 SIi.N.:J.Kufahatti"1.4 , " C
S / 0 J 11n1;--xappa,*
Aged 52 2 " % '
M] s The F'armer's C'o;Spinning Miil Ltd. ,
, A S1fi;'3E.B;ASomareddy___e .
" e Basawésreéidj, Director
M] Coop Spinning Mi1iLtd.,
PETYPIONERS
(By sziwavind D.Kuikarni. Adv for
_ Basavaprabhu S Patil 65 Assts.)
. ' T Th'e-Enforcement OffiC€I'
4' .f§_'I'1e Employees Provident Fund Orgarfisafion
IV Floor, Srinatll Complex
9' New Cotton Market
Hubii. . . . RESPONDENT
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. 1?. C.
praying to set aside the entire proceedings in CC
52%'
9-
No.312/2004 pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC--~Il Court, Gadag.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for admission before
the Court this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
I have heard the learned Counsel for the
material placed before the Court is sufiieient to
matter at this stage. I have perused tlie”i*e’eo1jd’s. .; l.
2. The relevant facts leading to this reiiision petition
is as under:
“Fhe complaint is filed oy”mtlie; Enforceitienty Officer,
Employees Provident Fund’ for taking
eogxizaneeivof th_eSe_eti0n 14(1A) and 14A of the
Employees’ Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952:.’ ” One the Inspector appointed under
lélectioo ‘…_the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Misee1la’rieoiis”_~v.,§1*oV*isions Act, $952. He is also a public
servant””‘w1t.y11n.’:’.-V name meaning of Section 21 of IPC and
as ‘Assistant Pu’biic Prosecutor for the purpose of
‘ M./X
eor;.d:u.e’f;iiig the cases arising out of the Employees’ Provident
V Schemes framed there under. The Farmers’s Coop
Mill Ltd., Hulkofi is a establishment within the
meaning of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellarieous Provisions Act, 1952. The Employees’
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Frovisions Act 1952, the
‘Km’
4*
I During the relevant pexiod, the accused was incharge of the
said factory and was responsible for the conduct of the
business. But, due to their negligence, they have committed
an offence punishable under Section 14 and 14(1A)
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miseeilaneous ‘
Act, 1952. The reasonable opportunity \f.:as~§ven ton
accused for payment of dues, but the acetised-jtéide tfneir-]ette’s’*~.r
dated 30.08.2003 pleaded time
The sanction order dated .22. 1 for ‘above
prosecution has been wanted Fund
Commissioner, Hubii, eontiplaint was
case against thewaccufsed”1:and4″‘As_sued process. Hence, the
case was registered. ~
3, Aggreived , same, the petitioners have
preferrediithisijp “before this Court.
for the petitioners submit that
the.i.i§}i;rector caiinot be made as a party for these proceedings,
.._en’*e not dealing with the business. The
‘*~:._’.__cont1t.i’i3nn_’Mon amount has not been recovered from the
Therefore, the question of depositing the amount
before the Insurance Organisation does not arise. He further
contended that the ad:ministrative charges have been paid for
(Edi.
“33
the relevant period. Objection filed by the accused has not
been considered.
5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel forthe
petitioner that the accused are Chairman, Vice
Director of the company and therefore, they V_I_:1€)lZ}\’l7.)V:6 held’ ”
responsible for commission of this ofi’e”_r1C€g_,,4ni j;
6. Section MAG) of meVEn1p_loyeesf_ Prot.rident”’F:inds ” i
and Misceklaneous Provisions Act,V.tE-€332. as
“If the person. ievoifefice under
this Act, tine schemeiior ‘tl.,;{e_ scheme
or the company, every
lmrsdn, :;’$”?l6″:”-at offence was
of, and was
responsiVbie:’:’to’,i for the conduct
of bnsiziess company, as well as
the CdlI1fiaIi3i; be deemed to be gtlilty of
ofience shall be liabie to be
” ~ .c and punished accordingly;
V. that nothing contained in this
. it stfofsection shall render any such person
it * : liable to any punishment, if he proves that
V’ = -the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence. ”
7. In View of this Section, the submission of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Chairman, Vice
s…«~”
6
Chairman aud Director were not responsible for conduct of
the business of the company cannot be accepted.
8. i have carefully persued the COlI3t]L)1.?3*.i;11Vt:L”:…u;T:1.V’}!3
complainant discloses that in spite of several 2 M
._ accused have not deposited the EFF icohtrichu-.tiop”
to the mouth of January, February,
of quashing a criminal proceedihgirjlciishould be livery it
sparingly and with too rarest
of rare cases. Further, be justified in
embarking upon tjo.. reliability or
genuineness or made in the FIR
or the complaiht; caserreasonable opporutnicty
was also given to taayment of the said dues,
but the accused dated 30.08.2003, pleaded for
tigrim, __ sspite this,””Cont1ibution amount was not paid.
met-ass was filed.
V it . 9. is hot the case that; the complamt filed by the
frivilous, vexatious and oppressive. Normally,
exercise the power to quash proceedings only in
V casewhere the complaint is vexatious or irivilous and it does
make out any offence alleged against him. Taking into
account of all the aspects of the case and also material placed
on record, in my view, this Criminal Petition is devoid of
a-v”‘/
‘%
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
this Criminal Petition is dimissed.
10. At this stage, iearned Counsel fer the
submits that ax} opportunity may be given H
petition for discharge. In case, if the “petii:io’if1eijV.”
petition for discharge, the same cs-;_1Aside.reVd;’i.”in’~.
accordance with law.
1 1. The observation —-.I._iii’3=._c1<~:i-._ not irlfluence
the Trial Court in any 111aIi:3.e:i._afl1iie§ the main case
and the same with law.
With these Criminal Petition is
disposed off.’ i i
Sd/…
Judge