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
