STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIJAY SEWING MACHINE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order passed on 7-4-69 by Mr. D. A. Chhaya Judicial Magistrate First Class Navsari in Summary Case No. 2469 of 1466 whereby the respondents accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be acquitted. They also came to be acquitted in other similar Summary Cases Nos. 2470 to 2497 of 1966. The State has filed appeals in those cases and they are Criminal Appeals No. 567 to 594 of 1969 respectively.

(2.) The respondent accused No. 1 is the Vijay Sewing Machine Co. Navsari of which the accused No. 2 was a partner during the period for which the criminal cases were filed. Shri Dinkarrai Lalbhai Desai an Inspector appointed under sec. 13 (1) of the Employees Provident Funds Act 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act found that the accused had failed to pay in time the Provident Fund contributions as required under paragraph 38(1) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Scheme during the period from 1-12-60 to 31-5-64. The accused were liable to pay the same within fifteen days of the close of the respective months in the manner so specified in Paragraph 38 of the Scheme. The accused were given an opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme and since they failed to do so after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Education & Labour Department of the Government of Gujarat the cases were filed in the Court of the learned Magistrate. In each case the failure to pay the amount is taken for a period of three months. Both the accused are thus sought to be punished under paragraph 76(a) read with paragraph 38(1) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952 and secs. 14 and 14A of the Employees Provident Funds Act 1952 The accused denied to have committed any offence. The learned Magistrate after considering the effect of the evidence adduced in the case found that the Act was made applicable to the company in the year 1964J and therefore contributions cannot be claimed from the company during the period prior to the same. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned in each of these cases he found that the alleged offences appear to have been committed without his knowledge and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso under sec. 14A(1) of the Employees Provident Funds Act 1952 In the result he acquitted them in all the cases. It is against that order of acquittal that the State has come in appeal in all cases.

(3.) All these appeals are consolidated and have been heard together and a common judgment is recorded.