EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN Vs. VEERABHADRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the e. S. I. Corporation and is directed against an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondents by the Trial Court. The respondents faced a dual charge of not having filed the requisite returns and not having paid the contribution under the scheme within the prescribed period of time. The respondents contested the case and the Trial Court acquitted the accused principally relying on the observations of this Court in the Division bench judgment in Employees' State Insurance corporation v Subbaraya Adiga 1988 (2) Kar lj 68. The view taken was basically to the effect that the High Court had laid down certain requirements that the Inspectors must adhere to while making a report in respect of the number of employees in a unit and that in the absence thereof, a conviction was not sustainable. Secondly, the Trial Court upheld the technical plea canvassed on behalf of the accused that the sanction order was bad in law on the ground that it appeared that there were some procedural defects that had occurred at the time when the proceedings under Section 45-A of the Act had been taken up and that consequently, the sanction order stood vitiated. The Corporation has challenged the correctness of the order of acquittal through the present appeal.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, the respondent's learned counsel has raised a preliminary objection insofar as he submits that in an appeal against acquittal, if it is demonstrated that the Trial Court has applied its mind to the record, that the evidence has been considered and that the Trial Court has for valid reasons acquitted the accused, that the high Court ought not to interfere with that order of acquittal unless it is demonstrated that the order of the Trial Court is per se perverse and has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel submitted that the view taken is a possible view in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench on the strength of the record and that it is equally well-settled law that where more than one view is permissible, principles of criminal jurisprudence postulate that the view in favour of the accused must be upheld and he therefore submitted that no interference is called for in the present appeal.

(3.) THE Corporation's learned counsel on the other hand pointed out that manifest injustice has occurred as a result of the Trial court's having misconstrued the observations in the Division Bench judgment and that it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice because the defaulters are acquitted on a technical ground and mat it is therefore imperative that this Court must rectify the legal position. It was also submitted that having regard to a correct reading of the Division Bench judgment and a correct evaluation of the record, that none of the findings of the Trial Court are sustainable and that consequently, interference in the present case is absolutely necessary. While I do not dispute the well-settled principles as pointed out by the respondent's learned counsel in relation to the law that applies in an appeal against acquittal, it is equally necessary to record that if the decision of the Trial Court is an erroneous one, if it has long-term damaging consequences particularly in the face of a social welfare legislation and if the reasoning itself is unsustainable, then it is not only necessary but incumbent upon the High Court to set aside the erroneous order, clarify the law and pass an order in consonance with the requirements of justice. As I shall presently demonstrate, the trial Court was in error on both counts and having regard to this position, the preliminary objection is overruled.