SANKAR Vs. MANABENDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before us, an Inspector under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, has come up in appeal under S. 378(4) of the Cr. P .C. aggrieved with an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta in case No. C-498 of 1982. THE said case arose out of a complaint filed under S.406 I.P .C. It was alleged by the petitioner before us as complainant in the said case that the two respondents are Directors of M/s. Eastern Type Foundry and Oriental Printing Works (Private) Limited, 18, Brindaban Basak Street, Calcutta-6, which is a factory and to which code No. 41-2215 was allotted by the E.S.I. Corporation. It was further alleged that the respondents were Principal Employers of the factory. THE most material allegation is that the Insurance Inspector of E.S.I. Corporation inspected the records of the factory and on inspecting wages, salary register, stamp books and other relevant records of the factory found that the accused had deducted an amount of Rs. 8484.20 paise only from the wages of the employees as employees' share of contribution for the period from Jan. 1980 to Dec. 1980 and failed to deposit the said amount of money to E.S.I. Corporation within the specified time as required under and in the manner as provided by the Act and Regulations and as such committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid amount within the meaning of Exp. 2 to S. 405 I.P. C. inserted in 1973. Evidence was adduced, but the learned Magistrate by the order impugned before us acquitted the respondents on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of this Court, viz. K. N. Genda v. THE State, reported in (1982) 2 Cal HN 223. On the authority of the case noted above the learned Magistrate held that there was not sufficient averment in the complaint to connect the accused with the alleged offence and on that ground the proceedings were liable to be quashed. Mr. Bhose the learned Advocate for E.S.I. contends vigorously that there are sufficient averments in the petition of complaint to connect the accused respondents with the offence under S. 406 I.P .C. alleged against them. Amongst other things Mr. Bhose contends that Genda's case does not relate to proceedings initiated by an E.S.I. Inspector under the E.S.I. Act. We do not, however, express any opinion on last mentioned contention of Mr. Bhose. For the respondents no one appears. But Mr. A. R. Mondal appears on behalf of the State and he contends that the order of the learned Magistrate is right. We have gone through K. N. Genda's case once again. In para 6 of the said judgment Expl. 2 to S. 405 I.P.C. has been quoted. For the convenience of all concerned we quote the explanation once again.