JUDGMENT
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This revisional application has been filed praying for quashing of the proceeding being C.R. No. 103 of 2001 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
2. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a company and the petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the said company. The company is engaged in production of tea. It is covered as per provisions of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said Act’). Due to various reasons like labour problem, loss of capital shortage of power and other factors, the company suffered huge loss and damages. Due to those reasons, which were beyond the control of the petitioners, they could not submit the return for the year 1999-2000 before the provident fund authorities in time. Said return was subsequently filed on 27.3.2001 and was accepted by the authority. The petitioner-company paid the full provident fund dues and other contributions for the said period. On 5.3.2001 the opposite party No. 1 lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jalpaiguri and on the basis of that C. R. No. 103 of 2001 under Section 14(1B) and 14A(1) of the said Act was started against the petitioners. It was alleged in the said complaint that the petitioners failed to submit the return for the year 1999-2000 in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 2 being the Managing Director of the company is not concerned with day-to-day conduct of the affairs of the said company and as such, he cannot be held liable for the alleged offence for which proceeding was started. The petitioners further claimed that all the relevant materials were not placed by the authority before the sanctioning authority and as such the sanction, as accorded is not valid. That apart, the petitioners also claimed that the opposite party/complainant failed to file the petition of complaint within the prescribed time limit as provided under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as such it is palpable that criminal case was started after the prescribed time limit and so cognizance, as taken by the learned Magistrate, is clearly bad in law. Due to these reasons the petitioners have claimed that further continuance of the criminal case will be an abuse of the process of the Court and so the same is liable to be quashed.
3. As against this, Mr. Mihir Kundu, learned Advocate for the opposite party argued that the authority concerned after perusal of all the relevant papers accorded sanction of prosecution against the petitioners and as they violated the provisions of the Act, so the criminal case was started against the petitioners. He further contended that there is no merit in the submissions of the petitioners to the effect that the proceeding is liable to be quashed. As such, Mr. Kundu prayed that the revisional application should be dismissed.
4. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. It appears from the revisional application that quashing of the proceeding has been prayed on various grounds along with the ground that the case was barred by limitation, as provided under Section 468(2)(b) Cr. PC. But it appears that in the petition of complaint it was stated that the petitioners allegedly committed offence by not failing the return for the year 1999-2000. So we can presume that the offence was contemplate by 31st March, 2000. As per provisions of Section 468 Cr. PC, the petition of complaint should have been filed by 01.4.2001 after obtaining sanction. Present case, it appears, was filed on 19.2.2001 after obtaining sanction. So there cannot be any doubt that said petition of complaint was not at all hit by the provisions of Sections 468(2)(b) Cr. PC. This position has also been conceded by Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners at the time of hearing. So, I have got no hesitation to hold that the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and question of quashing of proceeding, on this ground, does not arise at all and accordingly said prayer is rejected.
5. Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that in the present case it has been claimed by the complainant that the accused persons violated the provisions of the said Act and for that they are liable to be punished, as provided under Section 14(1B) read with Section 14A(1) of the said Act. In this connection, he drew my attention to the provisions of Section 14(1B) which clearly indicated “Insofar as it relates to the payment of inspection charges”. As such according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, a person can only be prosecuted as per this provision if there is allegation to the effect that he has failed to comply with the provision of Sub-section (3A) of Section 17 and Section 6C of the Act if it relates to the payment of inspection charges. According to Mr. Bagchi as in the present case there is not such allegation, so the provisions of Section 14(1B) read with Section 14A(1) of the Act are not applicable. So he claims that on the basis of such allegation, the criminal proceeding cannot proceed and consequently same should be quashed. But it is the settled principle that in order to allow a prayer for quashing, it is to be looked into as to whether there is any prima facie material or not. So far as present case is concerned, it appears that it has been stated in the petition of complaint that there is violation of provisions of the Act for a particular year and whether that alleged violation is sustainable in law or not cannot be looked into at this stage. It requires consideration of the entire materials at the time of trial by the learned Trial Court. This Court cannot function as Trial Court while adjudicating the prayer for quashing. I have already pointed out that from the petition of complaint it appears that a prima facie case has been made out and as such question of quashing does not arise at all.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that due to circumstances beyond control, the petitioners could not file the return in time and as such this fact should have been taken into consideration by the appropriate authority before filing the criminal case against them. According to Mr. Bagchi, all those facts clearly establish that the petitioners were prevented due to sufficient reasons in not filing the return in time. At the time of hearing, Mr. Bagchi drew my attention to the various newspaper reports and other documents in order to establish that in spite of best effort, the petitioners could not file the return in time. Consequently, the learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that this fact should be taken into consideration and the criminal proceeding should not be allowed to continue. In his opinion, in spite of those factors if the criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued then it will be an abuse of the process of the Court which should not be permitted. But I have already pointed out that a prima facie case has been made out from the petition of complaint which cannot be said to be patently absurd and improbable. Whether the petitioners were prevented due to sufficient reasons for not failing the return in time, can only be looked into and considered by the learned Trial Judge and not by this Court. After all this Court cannot usurp the function of the Trial Court in exercise of its power under revisional jurisdiction. To my- mind, those factors, on which the petitioners want to rely, should be kept open for the learned Trial Judge for consideration.
7. Therefore, from my above discussion, I am of opinion that there is no merit in the prayer for quashing as made by the petitioners and consequently the revisional application is liable to be rejected.
8. In the result, the revisional application is dismissed on contest. Prayer for quashing is rejected. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to take into consideration the factors which allegedly prevented the petitioners in not filing the return in time, as mentioned in the revisional application, at the time of trial if those factors were brought into evidence legally by the petitioners. The learned Magistrate is further directed to proceed with the disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible.
9. Send a copy of this order to the learned Court below at once for its information and necessary action.
10. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on urgent basis.