K M SHIVARAMA Vs. K C PURUSHOTHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed 16 complaints against the respondent herein under Section 200 of the Cr. P. C. for the offence punishable under Section 14 (1-A) of the Employees' Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Paragraph 38 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), for non-payment of the contributions due to the fund for various months mentioned in the complaint. Those complaints were filed before the learned Additional Munsiff, JMFC, Madikeri, Kodagu district and the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance directed issue of process to the respondent herein in all the 16 cases assigning respective numbers. Thereafter, the complainant let in evidence and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional munsiff and JMFC, Madikeri, dismissed all the complaints and the respondent was acquitted in all the cases. Being aggrieved by the judgments of acquittal, the appellant has preferred these appeals.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. Since common questions of law and facts are raised in all these appeals between the same appellant and respondent, all these cases are disposed of by this judgment. Retain a copy of this judgment in each file.

(3.) THERE is a dispute that the respondent is governed under the Provident Fund Scheme and the act and the Scheme are applicable to the respondent-establishment. It has been alleged that the respondent been alloted Code No. KN/2867 and the same is situated at K. Chettalli, Kodagu district. K. C. Purushotham is the person in charge of the said establishment and responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business. The respondent was required to pay the P. F. contribution as per Section 14 (1-A) of the Act and Section 38 of the Scheme but he failed to pay the same. Therefore, the appellant submitted that after obtaining necessary sanction complaints were lodged. But, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaints.