STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PANKAJ A GUPTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the order dated 1-10-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, IIIrd Court, Kalyan in C. C. No. 3340 of 1986 dismissing his complaint for the prosecution of respondent No. 1 under section 14 (2-A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 framed thereunder, has come up in appeal before me. The complaint has been dismissed.

(2.) I have perused the impugned order and heard Mr. Vaidya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant at considerable length. In my opinion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed for two reasons : firstly, because section 14-AC of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 makes it mandatory that without the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other persons who are empowered to grant it no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act. Section 14-AC reads thus -

(3.) THERE is a second reason as to why this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, this appeal has been preferred under section 378 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The aforesaid section reads thus -