RENUKA Vs. E S I CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the accused in S.T.No.227, C.C.No.92 and S.T.271 and C.C.No.190 of 1991 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. The complaints have been laid for offence punishable under S.85 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. These petitions were heard together.

(2.) One of the main contentions taken in all these cases is as regards the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, to take cognizance of the complaints. In Crl.M.C.1185/1991 the petitioner has prayed for transfer of C.C.No.92 of 1991 and S.T.271 of 1991 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichur to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, on the ground that S.T.No.322 of 1990 is pending there for non payment of contribution for the period 1-10-1988 to 31-3-1989. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. 1222 of 1991 has put forward certain grounds to show that the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. They have also stated that they are not liable to be prosecuted under S.86-A of the E.S.I. Act. The petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1093 of 1991 has contended that the amount due by way of contribution from him had not been determined and therefore, the question of his failure to pay the same did not arise. He has alleged that the prosecution is also bad for want of sanction from the Insurance Commissioner.

(3.) S.85 of the E.S.I. Act deals with punishment for failure to pay contributions, etc. Under S.86(l) of the Act, no prosecution shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the Insurance Commissioner or of such other officer of the Corporation as may be authorised in this behalf. Under sub-s.(2) thereof, no court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first Class shall try any offence under the Act and under sub-s.(3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint made in writing in respect thereof. The submission that the complaints are prima facie barred under sub-s.(1) of S.86, is prima facie belied by the averments and the documents and therefore, in my view, it has no merit. They have been legally instituted on written complaints before the competent court.