SRIKANTA DATTA NARASIMHARAJA WODIYAR Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these petitions are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself with the consent of both learned counsel.

(2.) these criminal petitions arise out of eighteen independent complaints filed by the respondent-enforcement officer, Mysore division against the present petitioner and five others for offences under paragraph 76 of the employees' provident fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the act'), employees' provident fund scheme, 1952 and employees' family pension scheme, 1971 and employees' deposit-linked insurance scheme, 1976 before the judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mysore. As the accused persons named in the complaints, the complainant and the Provisions under which such defaults could be punished are the same, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. Sections 14(1-a) and 14-a of the act are the relevant Provisions as also Section 14-ac of the act. These contributions relate to different months of the year 1990 and itwas the regional provident fund commissioner who accorded sanction under Section 14-ac of the act to prosecute the employers for these different offences. The establishment called M/s. Ideal jawa (india) limited, yadavagiri, Mysore which is registered as a factory under the factories Act, has the managing director, general manager and the directors to run the establishment. On these complaints, the trial court of the judicial magistrate first class, Mysore took cognizance and issued process to the accused persons named in the complaints. Out of them the present petitioner is accused No. 6. In para 3 of the complaint which is the same in all of them the complainant has alleged thus :

(3.) Section 14-a of the act which is common to all these schemes under whic haccording to the complainant the default has been committed reads as follows :