Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/284/1995 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 284 of 1995
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - GUJARAT STATE & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
VIMAL
ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD. & 5 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
BT RAO for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE NOT RECD BACK for
Opponent(s) : 1 - 5.
MR HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Opponent(s) : 6,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 07/02/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Mr.N.D.
Nanavati, learned senior counsel, states that in this matter,
earlier he was appearing on behalf of the appellant. He has
contended that now he is not on the panel of the appellant-Authority
and therefore, he cannot appear in the matter. Therefore, this Court
called Mr.B.T. Rao, learned counsel, who is on the panel of the
appellant-Authority. All the papers pertaining to the matter have
been provided to Mr.Rao and thereafter, he argued the matter.
The
appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal
under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 08th December
1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Umbergaon, in Criminal Case No.2110 of 1986, by which the learned
Magistrate was pleased to acquit the opponent Nos.1 to 5-original
accused from the charges levelled against them.
The
short facts of the complainant is that the opponent No.1 is the firm
managed by the opponent Nos.2 to 5. It is the case of the
complainant that opponent Nos.1 to 5-original accused were covered
within the meaning of Employees Provident Fund Act and Family
Pension Fund Act, 1952. It is also the case of the complainant that
the opponent Nos.1 to 5 were covered under the Employees Provident
Fund Scheme, 1971. As per the case of the complainant, according to
Paragraph Nos.30 and 38 of the Scheme, original accused were bound
to deposit the employees’ contribution along with the administrative
charges and and employer’s contribution or or before 15th
of the relevant month. It is the case of the complainant that
original accused were not deposited the said amount. Therefore, a
complaint to the said effect was registered with the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umbergaon for violation of
provisions of Section 14(1)(a) and 14-A of the Act read with
Paragraph 76-D of the Scheme.
Heard
Mr.B.T. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.L. Jani,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
opponent No.6-State.
Mr.Rao
has contended that the appeal is of the year 1995 and after 16
years, this appeal has come on Board for hearing. He has read the
report of Police Inspector, Umbergaon Police Station and contended
that as per the said report, whereabouts of present opponent Nos.1
to 5 are not known. He has also contended that the opponent No.1
company is closed since long and it was in possession of Bank of
Baroda and was sold by the Bank long back. It is also mentioned in
the said report that there are chances that opponent Nos.1 to 5 are
settled abroad. Mr.Rao has also read the statement of one Kunal
Krushnakant Pandya, Umbergaon. As stated in statement, Mr.Pandya is
at present owner of the said property. He has purchased the said
property from Parth Agency, who purchased the same from the
possession of Bank of Baroda in auction. Mr.Pandya is unaware about
whereabouts of the opponent Nos.1 to 5. Hence, Mr.Rao has contended
that looking to the facts of the case, this appeal may not survive
and the Court may pass appropriate order.
Mr.Jani
has contended that this is a very old appeal, which has now come on
board for hearing. He has also contended that looking to the report
produced on record, company is closed since long and it has been
sold by the Bank. He has also contended that whereabouts of opponent
Nos.1 to 5 are not known to anybody. Therefore, in view of these
facts, Court may pass appropriate order.
I
have perused the papers produced before me and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. I have also
gone through the Rojkam.
Looking
to the papers, it appears that the matter was pending for one year
at the stage of evidence before the trial Court. It also appears
that neither the complainant nor the counsel for the complainant
have ever bothered to remain present before the trial Court. It also
appears from the papers that though complainant had never filed any
application for adjournments, on several occasions, adjournments
were given in the interest of justice. It appears that thereafter as
the complainant was never remained present to produce evidence, at
last, in the interest of justice, the trial Court has dismissed the
complaint and acquitted the opponent Nos.1 to 5 from the charges
levelled against them.
In
above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the opponent
Nos.1 to 5-original accused of the charges levelled against them.
I
am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court and hence find no reasons
to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.
The
Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 22nd
December 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Umbergaon, in Criminal Case No.2110 of 1986, is hereby confirmed.
Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings,
if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top