AMIT VASHISTHA Vs. SURESH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2009 in Criminal Revision No.445 of 2007. By the impugned order, the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code on the premise that the adjudication proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter for short the `Act') not being before a court, the complaint itself was not maintainable.

(2.) In an adjudication proceeding under Section 7A of the Act, with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint on 206.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 228 IPC, that the respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing the Presiding Officer, and rushed to assault him, but the complainant was saved by the office staff. The Magistrate convicted the respondent till rising of the Court and imposed fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. In appeal, preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on an undertaking of good behavior for a period of one year. Aggrieved, the respondent moved the High Court in a revision application leading to the impugned order, thus the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court erred in not appreciating that the proceedings under Section 7A were judicial proceedings, and misdirected itself in concluding that the office of the appellant was not a court, and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Cr.P.C').