SATISH KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the revisional applications are being disposed of by a common Judgment and order because the parties are the same and common question of law and fact has arisen.

(2.) EMPLOYEES Provident Fund Organisation lodged a good number of FIRs before the Police station concerned against the petitioners alleging offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under sections 406/409 IPC in respect of diverse sum of money by not depositing the Employee's and Employer's Provident Fund Contribution with the appropriate authority and by misappropriating the same. All the prosecution were launched by the Provident Fund Inspector who were appointed as such under section 13 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is not necessary to advert to the details of the FIRs and amounts allegedly misappropriated in respect of each of the prosecution cases.

(3.) ONLY one question of law has been raised in this revisional application. This is whether the directors of an establishment can be made answerable to the charge under sections 406/409 of the IPC. FIRs were lodged against the petitioners under sections 406/409 IPC because of alleged commission of criminal breach of trust on account of non deposit of the PF dues, both of Employees and Employer's share with the PF Authorities.