VINCENT Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 960/2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy under Sec. 406 r/w.34 I.P.C. The complainant 's case is that he had worked as Assistant Personal Officer of Eddy Current Control Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company ') which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The 1st accused is the Managing Director and the 2nd accused the Executive Director of the Company, who are principal officers functioning under the terms of the Employees ' State Insurance Act and liable to pay employees contribution towards the E.S.I. scheme. The principal officers of the company had been making statutory deduction of the employees share contribution every month from the salary of the complainant and other employees of the Company. The respondents deducted money from the salary of the employees for the period from 1998 to 31.3.99 and remitted it on 11.8.99. The money deducted from 1.4.1999 to 30.9.1999 were remitted on 12.4.2003 and the period from 1.10.99 to 31.3.2000 remitted only on 26.12.2000. The respondents being the principal officers of the company deducted E.S.I. subscription and used the amount for the expense of the company, thereby misappropriated the amount and committed criminal breach of trust and thereby committed offence u/S.406 r/w.34 I.P.C. Hence the complaint.

(2.) During trial, the complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. Exts.DI and D2 were marked as defence evidence. The learned Magistrate, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by that, complainant preferred this appeal.

(3.) Heard both sides. The offence of criminal breach of trust is defined under Sec. 405 I.P.C., which reads as follows: