PRATUL CHANDRA DASGUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against charge-sheet dated 19.1.89 and the orders including order dated 23.2.89 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chandernagore in the Criminal proceeding.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to the present proceedings are as follows :

(3.) I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party, State of West Bengal. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in his argument has wanted to challenge the cognizance of the offence on two fold grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the Act in question enacted in 1952 is sufficient to deal with any allegation made in connection with non-payment of Provident Fund dues and other similar acts. In this respect, my attention has been drawn to Section 14(2A) of the Act. It is contended here that the established principle of law is when there is a Special Act, which provides for the procedure how an offence is to be dealt with, the case which falls under such Special Act has to be dealt within accordance with the provisions of such Special Act. In the instant case, the allegations of non-payment of Provident Fund dues has to be initiated, continued and decided in terms of such provisions of the Special Act and here the provisions of the General Act, namely, Indian Penal Code, even if sufficient to cover such factual allegations, shall have no application. The learned Advocate has referred the case of Rabindra Chamaria v. Registrar of Companies, W.B., 1992 CalCriLR 59; and also the case of S.K. Agarwalla & Ors. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr., 1985 1 CalHN 113, and also a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Syed Kalum v. M/s. Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works & Anr., 1993 CrLJ 232. Secondly, It is contended that Section 14 (AC)(1) of the Act clearly lays down that for taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act, there must be a previous sanction from an official authorised by the Central Government, namely, Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer, empowered by him. But, in the instant case prosecution was launched without obtaining, any sanction under the aforesaid provisions.