S R SAWANT Vs. BRADBURY MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court. Esplanade, Bombay, in Criminal Cases Nos. 279, 280, 624 and 625 all under the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and all of the year 1976. In all these four criminal cases, the accused were the same and the complainant is the Regional Provident Fund Inspector. The charge against the accused was one under section 14(1-A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, hereinafter referred to as the "Provident Fund Act". It was alleged that the accused contravened the provisions of paragraph 38 of the Provident Fund Act in as much as they had failed to make payment of the employees contribution as well as the employers contribution towards the provident fund. Criminal Case No. 279 of 1976 related to the period from September to November 1975 (both inclusive); Case No. 280 of 1976 related to the month of December 1975; Case No. 625 of 1976 related to the months of July and August 1975; and Case No. 625 of 1976 related to the month of January 1976. Admittedly the employees as well as the employers contributions were not made by the Company, accused No. 1, and the person in charge of the company. Criminal Cases Nos. 279 and 280 of 1976 were disposed of by the learned trial Magistrate by the common judgment and order dated 7th of March, 1977. Similarly, Cases Nos. 624 and 625 of 1976 were disposed of by the learned trial Magistrate by the common judgment and order dated 7th of March, 1977. Against the first order Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1978 has been preferred while against the second order Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1978 has been preferred.

(2.) When it was pointed out to Mr. Saldanha, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, original complainant, that one single appeal cannot be filed against the orders passed in two criminal cases, though they have been disposed of by a common judgment and order, Mr. Saldanha exercised his option by saying that Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1978 should be regarded as an appeal against the order passed in Criminal Case No. 279 of 1976 while Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1978 should be regarded as having been directed against the order passed in Criminal Case No. 624 of 1976.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate by the aforesaid orders acquitted accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 in all the cases. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were not proceeded against in the trial Court. The learned trial Magistrate was satisfied on the material placed before him that accused Nos. 3 and 6 were not in charge of the Company, which is accused No. 1 and they could not be held liable for the default that might have been committed by the other accused. After going through the entire judgment in both the sets of cases and after hearing Mr. Saldanha, I am satisfied that in so far as the order of acquittal against accused Nos. 3 and 6 are concerned they are not liable to be interfered with.