Loading...

The Enforcement Officer vs Paraspara Sahayi Co-Op. Printing … on 16 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Enforcement Officer vs Paraspara Sahayi Co-Op. Printing … on 16 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.A.No. 33 of 2008()


1. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PARASPARA SAHAYI CO-OP. PRINTING &
                       ...       Respondent

2. T.RAMAMCHANDRAN,

3. PRABHAKARAN KOROTH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :16/07/2009

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                       ---------------------------
                 CRL.A.NOS.33, 34 & 38/2008
                       ------------------------------
              Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

All these appeals are filed against the orders in

S.T.No.1265/2005, 1264/2005 and 1266/2005 of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. Actions were initiated against

the accused in each cases for violation of the provisions of the

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions

Act, 1952. The sanction was granted by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Kozhikode.

2. The court below after elaborately considering the

matter held that the person who had accorded the sanction

was not competent and therefore, the complaint is defective

and not maintainable for want of proper sanction.

3 . The learned counsel for the appellant had produced

a notification dated 8th October, 2008. By the said notification,

in the case of the States/Regions/Sub-Regions created after

17.10.1973, the powers exercised by the Regional Provident

Fund Commissioners of the erstwhile Regions as per the said

notification and/or by the Regional Provident Fund

2
CRL.A.NOS.33, 34 & 38/2008

Commissioner of the States/Regions/Sub-Regions created after

17.10.1973 be deemed as powers exercised under this

notification. So, it is in the light of this notification, the

appellant wants to contend for the position that the person

who had accorded sanction has got the power.

4. I am not prepared to express any opinion on the

merits of the case for the reason that this may have to read

with other communications and evidence may be also

necessary and therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity

to put forward this notification before the court below and

canvas for the position regarding the validity of the sanction.

I again make it clear that the court below is at free to decide

the question afresh in the light of this notification including the

question whether this notification can have the effect of

ratifying a transaction which had taken place long before

that. For the said purpose, the orders of acquittal passed by

the court below is set aside and the matters are remitted back

to the court below for fresh disposal after affording equal

opportunities to both sides to put forward their contentions

and then decide the matter afresh. The parties are directed to

3
CRL.A.NOS.33, 34 & 38/2008

appear before the court below on 26.8.2009. Needless to say

that no action can be taken in the meanwhile until a final

decision is taken in the matter.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

4
CRL.A.NOS.33, 34 & 38/2008

5
CRL.A.NOS.33, 34 & 38/2008

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information