K K BHARGAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This Judgment will dispose of all the three Criminal Revisions as the facts in all these revision petitions are identical except that there is difference in period of default. In these cases, the Provident Fund Inspector complained against the petitioner that the petitioner failed to deposit the provident fund contribution by the 15th of the following months provided under paragraph 138 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and they have committed offences under section 14(A) and 14 (1A) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 read with paragraph 76D of the Employees Funds Scheme, 1952.

(2.) . The prosecution has examined two witnesses, namely Gopal Krishan, UDC (Public Witness -1) and Shri D.V. Soni, Provident Fund Inspector (Public Witness -2). As regards the applicability of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme is concerned, it has been fully proved by the testimony of PW-1, wherein he had stated that the establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. This fact has been even admitted by petitioner no.1 K.K. Bhargava, in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.

(3.) . Another question which arises for consideration is whether there was delay in deposit of provident fund according to on behalf of the accused establishment paragraph 138 of the Scheme. Paragraph 138 of the Scheme provides that the employer, before paying the wages in respect of any period in which contributions are payable, deduct the employee's contribution from his wages which together with his own contribution as well as administrative charges of such person, shall pay within 15 days of the closing over every month. Petitioner no.1 has admitted in his statement under section 313 that the payment had been made but it was late meaning thereby that there was default in making the payment of contribution within time.