M R JOSEPH Vs. JOHN MENEZES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 3 appeals are by the Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Funds, Mangalore Division being aggrieved of the common judgment passed in c. C. Nos. 22445/89, 22446/89 and 22447/89 by the learned IV Additional Munsiff and jmfc, Mangalore, DK dated 31-7-1996 acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 14 (1a), 14 (IB) of the employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 r/w Paragraph 76 (d) of the Employees' Provident Funds schemes 1952.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : the accused Mr. John Menezes, being the proprietor of M/s. Prakash Tile Works, registered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 failed to pay Provident fund contribution for the months of Dec. 198 8/01/1989, failed to pay family pension for the month of Dec. 1988 and so also failed to pay Insurance Fund contribution for the months of Dec. 198 8/01/1989. On account of the non payment of contribution amount, the Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Funds filed complaints under Section 14 (IA), 14 (IB) for recovery of the contribution amount for the different periods. The 3 complaints came to be registered as C. C. Nos. 22445/89, 22446/89 and 22447/89. The Court after taking cognizance, secured the presence of the accused. The accusation was recorded separately in all the 3 cases. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In all these 3 cases, the Enforcement Officer viz. M. R. Joseph was examined as PW 1 and the documents were marked as Exts. PI to P 13. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. The defence is one of total denial. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The learned IV Additional Munsiff and jmfc, Mangalore, acquitted the accused on the ground that the complaints filed are barred by limitation. Secondly, the sanction order is not a valid one. Thirdly, on the ground that PW 1 M. R. Joseph was not competent to file the complaints. It is this judgment of acquittal of the accused which is assailed in the present appeals.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, for the appellant contended that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge is erroneous and not based on facts. The offence under the Employees' Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is of continuation in nature which has got the effect of recurring cause of action. Therefore, the trial Court holding that the claim is barred by limitation is erroneous. Secondly, contended though the sanction order Ext. P2 is produced, merely because of the reason that it does not bear the office seal and as such it is not valid is not proper when the competent officer has passed an order in accordance with the provisions of section 14ac of the Act. He has further contended that when the complaints were filed the Court after scrutinising the papers took cognizance as provided under Section 14ac of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court holding that there is no valid sanction is without any force. He has lastly contended that the finding of the learned trial Judge that PW 1, mr. M. R. Joseph , is not competent to file the complaints is without any ground. Therefore, prayed to set aside the findings of the trial Judge and to allow the appeals.