PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. P S S SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals preferred by the State against the acquittals of the respondent in two related cases, in which the facts are identical, but the periods of time concerned are different. In both these cases, the Inspector of Provident Funds, Coimbatore, prosecuted Messrs. Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd. , Coimbatore (first accused) and the present respondent, the General Manager of the mills, the second accused, for an alleged offence under Section 14 (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 19 of 1952, read with paragraph 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. What has subsequently happened is that the prosecution was withdrawn as against the first accused (Messrs. Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd.), and it survived only as against the respondent. After proceeding into the facts in great detail, the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Coimbatore held that the respondent was saved by virtue of the proviso to Section 14-A of the Act, which is in the following terms:

(2.) SRI V. T. Rangaswami Aiyangar for the respondent raises a plea that the mills having been exonerated in these proceedings, or the prosecution of the mills withdrawn, the liability of a person like the respondent (General Manager) does not separately survive, since the mills or the concern is the party mainly liable under Section 14-A. There is something-to be said for this view, for a reading of S. H-A makes it clear that the company or organisation is made liable for the offence as a juristic perron. But it is not really necessary for no to furnish an interpretation of this section, in this context. The real question is whether it is now expethent, or essential in the interests of justice, that the acquittal of the respondent should be interfered with.

(3.) I find from a perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate, that he has made an exhaustive analysis of the facts with reference to the proviso relied on by the respondent. The learned Magistrate seems to believe that the respondent strained every nerve to save the mills as a going concern, including running hazards himself in order to provide credit, and that the situation deteriorated to such an extent that the respondent was quite unable to make any provision for the provident fund contribution of the employer. Other and more urgent demands had to be met, and it was the collapse of the company, financially speaking, which led to the inability. It seems to me that the facts do justify the inference that the respondent has tried very hard to save the company. Even if I were inclined to take a somewhat different view of the facts, it will still entirely be a question of fact whether the test laid down by the proviso has been fulfilled in an individual case.