LAWS(CAL)-1991-4-42

ANUP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF W B

Decided On April 29, 1991
ANUP KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have by now travelled a long distance from the strict concept of Adversarial Process of administration of Justice, where under a Judge could not see a thing unless shown, or hear a sound unless made, by the parties or their Counsel and was to act as a neutral observer in the forensic combat and only to declare at the end as to who has won or lost, not that who ought to have won or lost. We do not any longer hesitate to decide a case on a point, even though not articulated by the parties or their Counsel, if, on the materials on record, the same shows its head and stares at the face and appears to be of such material importance as to determine the. We do not either hang the accused or bang the prosecution, if a decisive factor irresistibly manifests itself from or on the record, no matter whether the parties or their Counsel did or could urge the same. We have adverted to this as in the case at hand, we have decided to allow the revision, not on the points urged, but on a point not precisely urged by the petitioners.

(2.) The accused persons at the relevant time were the Directors of Ramjhore Tea Co, which owned the Ramjhora Tea Estate or Tea Garden. We may note that before us and also in the petition before us, some distinction was sought to be made between a Tea Garden and a Tea Estate. We have found none, and even assuming there can be one it would be a distinction without any difference for our present purpose.

(3.) A First Information Report was lodged and then a charge-sheet was filed against the accused Directors under section 406, Penal Code on the allegation that the amounts deducted from the wages of the employees of the Tea Garden as their contribution to the Statutory Fund under the Employees Provident & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, were not deposited in the said Fund. On that charge-sheet, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the Directors and two of them have moved this Court in revision against such taking of cognizance and issuance of process.