H V THIMMEGOWDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these criminal petitions arise out of the similar orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hassan in C. C. Nos. 2512/92 to 2522/92 dismissing the applications filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : The Provident Fund Inspector, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation of Hassan Division filed complaints on 6-8-1991 for initiation of action under Sec. 14 (1) (1-A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the accused persons who are the Directors of M/s. Hemavathi Coffee Curing Works (P) Ltd. , Hassan on account of the default in contributing to the Provident Fund of its employees as required under the Act and the Scheme. The petitioners are accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5. It appears one of the accused viz. , accused No. 6, G. M. Rajendra was found absconding. Therefore, the case against accused No. 6 came to be split up. When the matter was at the stage of recording plea, the petitioners filed an application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. for discharge in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1619 : (1996) 4 JT (SC) 701. The learned Magistrate after hearing the prosecution as well as the learned counsel for the accused held that the petitioners are not entitled for discharge on the ground that the offence alleged is one of economic offences in nature and they cannot take shelter under the judgment supra. It is with the said reasoning the learned Magistrate dismissed all the applications filed under Section 239 of Cr. P. C. for discharge. As against the dismissal of the applications for discharge, the petitioners have now come up with the present criminal petitions praying for quashing of the proceedings of the trial Court.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri A. H. Bhagwan is that the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1619, while dealing with the category of cases, under 2 (f) held that if the offence punishable is up to three years with or without fine or if the trial has not commenced for a period of two years from the date of appearance of the accused, the accused persons are entitled for an order of discharge. He has secondly contended that in the case of "common Cause," A Registered Society v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1539, it is further clarified that the accused is entitled for a speedy trial. Even on this ground also, the accused persons are entitled for discharge. He, therefore, contended that the learned Magistrate has erred in not discharging the accused and prayed to quash the entire proceedings whether the offence falls within the definition of 'economic offence' or not.