S M BASAPPA Vs. B ANANDA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 11 Criminal Appeals are brought from the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate. Second Court. Bangalore City, acquitting one Ananda Rao who was the accused in all these cases for an offence committed under S.14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act 1952.

(2.) The cases before the learned Magistrate started on private complaints filed by the Provident Fund Inspector, Gr.I, Bangalore Divn.IV and since the trial was in the summons cases, under S.251 CrIPC, the particulars of the offence of which Ananda Rao was accused, was read over to him in order to record his plea. While stating the case for the plea of the accused, it was specifically pointed out that the accused had failed to submit monthly returns in Form Nos.5, 10 and 12 due in respect of his establishment for the respective months as required under Paras 28 and 38(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Funds Scheme and as such he was guilty of the offence under S.14(2) of the Act read with para 76(b) of the Scheme framed there-under. The plea of the accused in all these cases was one of bare denial. He did not explain as to whether he really failed to submit the returns or that he was not liable to submit such returns under the provisions of law. Thereafter, in C.C.612 of 1976 against which Cr.A.90/77 is filed, as the order-sheet indicates the complainant wanted to file certain documents and there was objection from the defence that there was inordinate delay in filing such documents. The learned Counsel for the complainant further submitted that he wanted to explain the delay, but the learned Magistrate considered that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure code to explain the delay and since the documents were not filed in time, he refused to accept them. Thereafter, as the order-sheet points out, the complainant's Counsel submitted, "that without those documents he had no evidence". The learned Magistrate upon that, passed the impugned order acquitting the accused. In the other 10 connected appeals, as the order-sheets indicate, on behalf of the complainant, adjournments were sought, for the obvious reason of giving evidence with reference to the relevant documents. However, the learned Magistrate, considered that no good reasons were made out to adjourn these cases. So saying, he acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by these orders of acquittal made by the learned Magistrate, the State has filed these appeals.

(3.) It is contended, in the foremost, by the Junior Central Government standing Counsel, that under S.255 of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate could only record the order of acquittal after taking all the evidence referred to under S.254. It is evident that no evidence was recorded under that provision. In one of the cases, an attempt was made to procure such evidence in the shape of documents but those documents were shut out by the learned Magistrate. In the remaining cases, an adjournment was sought to produce the evidence and the adjournment was not granted by the learned Magistrate. In other words, it means, an opportunity was not given to the complainant to adduce evidence under S.254 in support of these cases. Under S.309, the learned Magistrate had sufficient ground to grant the adjournment. The documents by themselves could not be considered irrelevant. At any rate, that was not the observation made by the learned Magistrate. Under S.311, similarly, the trial Magistrate had absolute power to summon any witness whom he considered necessary with reference to those documents for the purpose of trial in order to fulfil the ends of justice.