DEBIDAS DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisional applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. praying for quashing of the proceeding in connection with Special case No. 8/2004 pending before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Howrah, arising out of Sankrail Police Station case No. 137/2002 dated 07.08.2002 under Sections 406/409 of the I.P.C. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being an employee of the Government of India was employed in the capacity of Unit Head of National Unit of N.J.M.C. He has retired from the said service on 31.08.2002. Said company, due to financial stringency from 1992 on wards failed to remit the employees' share of the Provident Fund dues with the statutory authorities. Ultimately, the Central Government stopped providing funds for the said company and as such, as the company failed to manufacture substantial products, it was suffering from extreme financial stringency and failed to deposit the Provident Fund dues in time with the statutory authority. As a result of that, the Provident Fund Authorities filed several cases against the said company. On 07.08.2002 and 14.11.2002 the opposite party No. 2 lodged complaints with the Sankrail P. S. regarding the non-payment of the employees' share of the Provident Fund which according to him was tantamounting to an offence of criminal breach of trust. On the basis of those complaints, the cases in question were registered against the company and the present petitioner. The petitioner surrendered before the Court below and was released on bail. Ultimately, pursuant to the decision of the Government of India, Punjab National Bank has agreed to provide fund for the company taking into consideration the difficult financial condition of the company. As such, according to the petitioner, it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that the petitioner or the company intentionally committed breach of trust in respect of the money arising out of employees' share of the Provident Fund. The petitioner has claimed that as there is no basis of framing of a charge for the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust, further proceeding with the criminal cases, pending before the Court below, will be an abuse of the process of the Court and as such, by filing this revisional application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings, as pending before the Court below.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. At the time of hearing, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire payment which was due from the petitioner company, has since been paid to the appropriate authority. The learned Advocate for the opposite party, Regional Provident Fund Authority submits by filing a report, obtained from the said authority, to the effect that in fact entire dues has been paid by the petitioner company, although belatedly. Under such circumstances, learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that no purpose will be served in proceeding further with the criminal case pending before the learned Court below. But the learned Advocate for the opposite party submits that the payment in question has been made belatedly. According to him, there cannot be any doubt that at the initial stage there was commission of the offence and for that reason the learned Court was justified in taking cognizance of the matter and as such there cannot be any question of quashing the entire proceeding. The fact that the entire dues has since been paid, can be taken into consideration by the Court below while disposing of the case finally. In this respect he cited a decision reported in 2002(2) CHN Page 407, Jasoda Glass & Silicate & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. Wherein the learned Division Bench observed:-

(3.) It appears from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court that there almost similar situation arose and instead of quashing the entire proceeding, direction was given to the accused/petitioner to place the entire fact before the learned Court below and after considering the fact that the payment has already been made, it has been observed in the said decision, that the Court below will be at liberty to take appropriate decision regarding the imposition of any sentence upon the petitioner or not. In view of the said decision, I am of opinion that it will not be proper to quash the proceeding, pending before the Court below, as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, from the report, as submitted on behalf of the opposite party, it is not very clear as to whether entire payment has been made or not. It requires proper scrutiny by the Court below. To my mind, appropriate direction may be given to the Court below for taking into consideration the claim that the entire payment has since been made while disposing of the-case finally. If after scrutiny, it appears to the Court below that entire payment has been made, then he can dispose of the case in the light of the observation as made by the Division Bench, of this Court in the decision cited above.