KANPUR JUTE UDYOG Vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are forty connected Cr1. Misc. Cases Nos. 3192 of 1980 to 3410 of 1980 and 4402 of 1981 involving the same questions of facts and law. The applicants are being prosecuted under various sections of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme for contravention thereof. Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are Sri A.P. Jam, Director and Sri G.K. Naulakha Manager except Udyog and others Vs. The Provident Fund Inspector and another If there is a prima facie case against the accused,the court will not quash the proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.that in nine other connected cases 3392 of .1980, 3395, 3399, 3403 to 3407 and 3410 of 1980 in place of Sri O.K. Naulakha the name of Sri C.B. Tewari has been substituted as manager and in case No. 4402 of 1981 the name of Sri C.B. Tiwari and Naulakha, have been delete Learned counsel for the applicants urged that actually no prosecution could be launched against applicants Nos. 2 and 3 and this Court can exercise its inherent powers in their favour. The law is well-settled by the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan1 reiterating the earlier principles in earlier rulings that in a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the Court is simply to consider the materials that were before the trial court summoning the accused persons. It will not consider what is the defener of the either side or what other materials are available. H has also been laid down in that case that if a prima facie case is disclosed the Court will not in tervene in exercise of its powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) I have perused the plaint and the materials that were before the Magistrate. It has been expressly stated that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are accused persons. In the complaint applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are alleged to be the persons incharge of the establishment of opposite party Nos. 1 and are responsible for the conduct of its business. When that is the allegations the complaint is entertainably against the prima facie. Of course, the trial court will naturally examine whether they fall in that category and are liable to any conviction or sentence. That is a question of facts and law has to be applied to proved facts. To be brief and to avoid any prejudice to the applicants during trial I held that applying the principles laid down in Delhi Municipality (supra). This application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be entertained nor any relief under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be granted at this stage. All the applications are therefore dismissed.