(1.) THESE cases are taken up together and disposed of hereunder: The petitioner No. 2 is a private limited Company under the name and style Associated Indian Enterprises (P) Limited. The petitioner No. 1 was the erstwhile Managing Director of the Company. The Company was covered under the provision of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952. Admittedly there was some dues outstanding to be payable to the opposite parties. But of course, those amount had been already paid back before lodging of the criminal case against the petitioners. Notwithstanding payment of such contributions, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner No. 1 under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2) of the E.P.F. and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952. The opposite party No. 2 had. However, led evidence before the Court below who on elaborate discussion of evidence was, However, inclined to record an order of conviction against both the petitioners sentencing the petitioner No. 1 to suffer S.I. for three months and both were directed to pay fine of Rs. 1.000/ - each. Against the order of sentence and conviction passed by the learned Magistrate the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Alipore which was however, disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who reduced the sentence of Simple Imprisonment by directing both the parties to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/ - each. Therefore being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of conviction the petitioners have filed the above revisions.
(2.) MR . Bhattacharya learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has strongly urged that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in recording an order of conviction and sentence in -as -much as there was no charge framed against the Company and also there was no representation before the learned Magistrate. He indicated that it is open to the authority to either chose to proceed against the Company, Director or both. In this case the Corporation, opposite party No. 2 had However preferred to proceed against the both. Therefore, the Company ought to have been properly represented before the learned Magistrate, also there should be proper charge framed against it. In the absence of such charge, the order of conviction and sentence against the Company must be held illegal.
(3.) MR . Bhattacharya in this connection has placed reliance upon a reported judgment of this Court passed by a Division Bench in 1978 Vol. 1 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases (Durgamata Oil Mill and another v. Corporation of Calcutta). On a careful reading of the judgment I found that exactly similar situation had arisen in the above case. The provision of Section 17 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is also quite akin to the provisions of Sections 14(1A) and 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952. In the above judgment it has been held as follows: