MOMTAZ BEGUM Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a director of United Rubber Works (Private Limited. The prosecution concerned is one under Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act XIX of 1952) read with Clauses (a), (c) and (e) of paragraph 76 of the Scheme framed under the Act Upon the applicant being summoned, she applied for dispensation of her personal attendance in Court under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was refused. The applicant then moved the Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court Alipore but her prayer was again refused. Thereafter the present Rule was issued.

(2.) UPON due notice to the State Mr. Dutt has contended that the present prosecution as against the petitioner should be quashed on the ground that the petition of complaint did not disclose any offence so far as the petitioner was concerned. In support of this contention Mr. Dutt has not only taken me through the petition of complaint but has referred to Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act which is in these terms:

(3.) I would accordingly quash the prosecution as against the petitioner and make the Rule absolute.