INDERJIT C PAREKH Vs. V K BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are the directors of Rajnagar Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad and appellant No. 3 is an officer of the said company. On March, 19, 1969 a complaint was lodged against them by respondent 1, an Inspector appointed under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 that they had failed to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 39,419.50 being the contribution to the Provident Fund for the months of June, July and August, 1968 and that thereby they had contravened the provisions of Paragraph 38(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, an act punishable under Paragraph 76(a) of the Scheme.

(2.) An investigation was made into the affairs of the company under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and on being satisfied that the company was managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest, the Government of India issued an order dated January 7, 1972 authorising, the Gujarat State Textile Corporation to take over the management of the Company. On May 6, 1972 Gujarat Government issued a notification declaring the company to be a "relief undertaking" under S. 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 ('the Act'), and directing that):

(3.) The appellants filed one application after another asking the Court which was seized of the matter to stay the prosecution in view of the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat. Two of such applications were rejected by the learned City Magistrate III Court, Ahmedabad. Appellants acquiesced in one of the orders, carried the other in revision to the High Court but withdrew that proceeding. On October 27, 1972 they made yet another application for the same relief which also was rejected by the learned Magistrate. He took the view, as in the two earlier applications, that the operation of Section 4 of the Act is restricted to the status mentioned in the Schedule to that Act and that sub-clause (iv) of Section 4(1) did not contemplate stay of criminal proceedings. The High Court of Gujarat rejected summarily the revision application filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Magistrate. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.