JOYDEB BASAK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGALR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application the challenge is the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case no. 7492 of 2015 arising out of Khardah Police Station case no. 1060/15 dtd. 18/12/2015 under Ss. 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) presently pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short ACJM), Barackpore.

(2.) On 18/12/2015 the Inspector of Enforcement, Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Organization, SRO, Barackpore lodged a written complaint with the officer incharge of Khardah Police Station inter alia alleging the commission of offence under Sec. 406 of the IPC. The allegation leveled in the said complaint is to the effect that the petitioner no.1/company is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short EPF and MP Act) under code no. 338. It has been alleged that as per provisions of Sec. 6 of the said act read with paragraph 38 of the Employee's Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the petitioner no.1 is required to pay the employees' share of provident fund contribution deducted from the salaries/wages/amount on or before 15th of the following month to the Statutory Provident of the Central Board of Trustees. It was alleged that when the complainant went on inspection of the said mill of the petitioner no.1/ company, it was noted by him that the petitioner no. 2 had deducted a sum of Rs.15,91,619.00 from the wages/salaries of the employees for the period months of October and November of 2015 and the same amount was not remitted with the statutory fund.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case being no. Khardah Police Station case no. 1060/15 was registered against the petitioners herein under Sec. 406 of the IPC. During investigation, the Investigating Officer made a prayer for adding further Ss. 409/420/120B of the IPC as it was revealed that there was a non-remittance of the said amount being Rs.15,91,615.00 by the petitioners. The prayer was allowed by the Ld. ACJM, Barackpore vide an order dtd. 20/8/2016 and the charges under Ss. 409/420/120B of the IPC were added subsequently. Argument advanced:-