MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN Vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to the present petition of revision are as follows: The Provident Fund Inspector for Madhya Bharat lodged three different complaints against the petitioners Mohammad Hussain and Akbarali bearing numbers 413, 414 and 415 of 1954. The first two were in respect of offences under Section 14 of the Employee's Provident Funds Act 1952 and Clause 76 of the scheme framed thereunder and third was under Section 406 I. P. C. All these cases were consolidated by an order dated 14-1-1955. On 27-11-1954, the Provident Fund Inspector had moved the Court for an order directing the accused to produce certain Registers and Account-books of the Nazarali Mills. This application was allowed and an intimation of this was given to the learned Counsel for the accused about the order. On 30-4-1955 the accused Mohammad Hussain applied stating that he received the intimation of the order pertaining to production of registers and account books through his counsel late and did not know of the order personally as he was exempted from appearance. It was further stated that he wanted to raise some legal objection in respect of the complainant's application for production of documents. He therefore prayed for adjournment particularly as his counsel had gone out. The court thereupon passed an order directing the accused to produce the documents and intimating that if this were not done search-warrant would be issued. This order was passed on 30-4-1955.

(2.) ON 9-5-1955 certain registers were produced and a prayer was made by the accused Mohammad Hussain by an application that he may be allowed to raise legal objections regarding the intended issue of search-warrant.

(3.) ON 16-5-1955 an application was submitted raising two preliminary objections to the maintainability of these complaints. Firstly it was contended that the said Nazarali Mills were not a controlled industry and secondly the complaints do not set out the fact specifically that the said Mills were a controlled industry. The learned- Magistrate by his order dated 18-7-1955 overruled both these objections. He then directed an issue of search-warrant by an order in the proceeding.