ANIRUDDHAKUMAR DHOTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications for anticipatory bail are filed on account of a complaint lodged by the Provident Fund Inspector for offence under sections 406 and 409 read with section 34 of I. P. C. against the present applicants and others. The allegation in the complaint is that during the period January 1999 to October 2000, Maharashtra Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Limited (hereinafter referred as MAPL) deducted the amount of provident fund from the salary of the employees amounting to Rs. 54,00,851/-, but did not deposit the same with the appropriate authority and as such offences under sections 406, 409 read with section 34 of I. P. C. have been committed. The applicants sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court which was rejected by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 6-7-2001. These applicants have, therefore, moved this Court for anticipatory bail. Since all these applications are connected, they were heard together and it is proposed to dispose of the same by common order.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri H. D. Dangre argued for the applicants in Criminal Application Nos. 975 of 2001 and 976 of 2001. Learned Advocate Shri R. P. Joshi argued the bail application on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Application No. 940 of 2001 and learned A. P. P. Mrs. Neeta Jog argued on behalf of the State and was assisted by learned Advocate Shri S. B. Wahane, who was permitted to assist the prosecution.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Dangre took me through the record and pointed out that MAPL has been passing through financial crisis for quite long and even in spite of all efforts made the company could not be brought out of woods completely though present applicants have considerably improved the financial condition of the company. He pointed out that the company had gone before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and ultimately was ordered to be wound up. Therefore, his submission is that if there is any lapse in not complying with the provisions of law relating to the Provident Fund, it has to be viewed in the light of the financial crisis which the company has been facing for the past many years. He also pointed out that the notices issued by the Provident Fund Authorities were duly replied explaining the financial condition of the company through which it was passing. According to him, there is no case at all for misappropriation but at the most it may be said to be a case of misplaced priority. It was categorically argued by him that no deductions were made from the salary of the employees at any time and these facts have been categorically stated by the applicants not only in their applications before this Court but in affidavit filed before the Sessions Court as also in the rejoinder filed in this Court. According to him, employees were being paid only advances against the salary and these advances ranged from 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the net salary payable and the provident fund was never deducted. It is further urged by him that salary slips were issued on account of the Gherao tactics used by the employees for accounting purpose only and that provident fund of the employees was never deducted and, therefore, there is no question of deposit of the provident fund and there is no case of misappropriation.