G MANICKAMURTHY Vs. KESAVARAYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Crl.R.C. is filed against the order dated 28.1.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.3066 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Madurantakam.

(2.) THE respondents/accused filed an application for return of documents which were seized by the revision petitioner/complainant/Enforcement Officer of Provident Funds, for production before the enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the proceedings have been over and the respondents/accused have come forward with such application for return of the documents, and the said application was allowed, against which, the revision petitioner/complainant has preferred this Crl.R.C.

(3.) CONSIDERING the rival submissions made by both sides, admittedly, the respondents/accused were prosecuted under Sections 14(1B) and 14-A of the said Act. Admittedly, the documents mentioned in the petition pertain to 1987-88 to 1993-94 and the documents are the Attendance Register and the Salary Acquittance Register and the case is still pending and to prove the innocence of the respondents/accused, the documents are necessary. As stated above, the documents are Attendance Register and the Salary Acquittance Register, which will clearly prove as to how many persons were employed and whether the Provident Funds have been collected from the teaching and non-teaching staff. In such circumstances, I am of the view that those documents are necessary to prove the innocence of the respondents/accused.