S K GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate, for violations of the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act and some of regulations there under. Shortly speaking the allegation in the petition of complaint was that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were offenders for no submitting C and A sets of cards within the statutory period. The accused No. 1, who is the petitioner No.1 here, filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on certain grouilds. The learned Magistrate, 1st Court. Sealdah, dismissed that application of the accused No.1 for dismissal of the petition of complaint. Against that order of the learned Magistrate dated 7.8.80, the petitioner No.1 has filed this revisional application. It may be noted that petitioner No. 1 who was the accused No.1, has only moved this court. The accused No.2 has not come up before this Court.

(2.) Mr. Mrinmoy Bagchi, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint cannot lie against the petitioner No. 1, as he is not an employer within the meaning of Regulation 2(g) and section 2(17) of the E.S.I. Act. His second point has been that the calculation of the periods for submission of the sets of cards, is also entirely misconceived. His third submission has been that a part of the case is barred by limitation. Mr. Tapas Midya, the learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that this revisional application cannot itself be entertained, as the E.S.I. being a corporation, has not been impleaded as a party.

(3.) The preliminary point as to whether the revisional application itself is competent is to be disposed of first. It appears that this contention of Mr. Midya for the State cannot be upheld. In the revisional application the State of West Bengal has been made a party. The E.S.I. is under the State of West Bengal Therefore, the State of West Bengal itself can represent all concerned. Moreover, in a revisional application, the court can suo motu look into the record and quash a proceeding, if some patent illegality is found. Last of all, by reason of section 403 of the Cr. P.C., the revisional court is not obliged to give a party right of hearing. For al these reasons, I find that the revisional application itself cannot fail. There fore, it is now necessary to turn to the points raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner