SHEO NARAIN TANDON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sri S. N. Tandon was prosecuted by the Regional Provident Fund Inspector, Kanpur for contravening the provisions of Section 38 (i) and (ii) and Section 76 of the Employees, Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. He was found guilty of the offence charged. The learned City Magistrate considered it appropriate to let him off with a warning.

(2.) Sri S. N. Tandon then preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow. A preliminary objection was raised there that no appeal lay because the learned Magistrate had not passed any sentence on the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the case of Hari Charan v. State, reported in 1950 All WR 678: (AIR 1951 All 442), held that no appeal lay under Section 408, Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal was, accordingly dismissed as being not maintainable.

(3.) Thereupon a criminal revision was filed in this court against the learned Sessions Judge's order upon the ground that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in holding that no appeal was maintainable. The revision came up before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of my brother, Mulla and brother Tandon, My brother, Mulla, was of the view that no appeal lay to the learned Sessions Judge because a mere order of admonition (actually the Magistrate used the word 'warning') amounts in effect, to a lesser sentence than that of a fine of Rs. 50/- and that, therefore, the provisions of Section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Code') which related to appeals in petty cases applied and no appeal was, therefore, permissible. On the other hand, my brother, Tandon, was of the view that Section 413 did not cover the case, and Sri S. N. Tandon was entitled to prefer an appeal.