HIND TIN INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule relates to a proceeding in case no. C-5335 of 76 under Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court Calcutta under section 14 (1a), 14 (2) and 14a (1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Family pension Fund Act, 1952 read with paragraph 7 (6) (b) and 7 (6) (d) of the Employees Provident Fund scheme.

(2.) THE petitioner no. 1 is M/s. Hind Tin Industries is situated at 107a, raja Dinendra Street, Calcutta. The petitioner no. 2 is the General Manager. The petitioner no. 3 is the karta of M/s. Hind Tin Industries. The petitioner no. 4 is the factory manager. It appears that a petition of complaint dated the 25th of November, 1976, was filed by the Provident Fund Inspector before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on the basis of which cognizance was taken under section 14 (1a), 14 (2) and 14a (1) of the Employees Provident Fund and Family pension Fund Act, 1952, read with para. 76 (b) and 76 (d) of the Employees provident Fund Scheme. The same was then transferred to learned Metropolitan magistrate 7th Court.

(3.) IT is stated in the petition upon which this rule was issued that it would be gross abuse of the process of law if the prosecution initiated upon a perfunctory, baseless and vague complaint is allowed to continue. Mr. Talukdar, the learned advocate appearing in support of the rule mainly urged that the allegations against Mr. J. K. Kaiyan and Sri Gopal Chandra Saha are that they are in charge of the said establishment and are responsible to it for the conduct of his business. According to Mr. Talukdar, the same is not enough to implicate the aforesaid petitioners and on the basis of the said complaint no process should have been issued, nor any cognisance taken. He referred in this connection to a decision mahalderam T. E. Vs. Prodhan reported in 1978 Calcutta High Court Notes 336 in which similar averments in the petition of complaint were considered not enough for the purpose of taking cognisance. In that case Mr. D. P. Chowdhury, the learned advocate, who appeared for the petitioners submitted that it had to be established "that the Director was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. A bold statement like that made in this petition of complaint was not enough". Mr. Das appearing for the provident Fund inspector also conceded that the complaint was nor happily worded. Under those circumstances the cases pending against the petitioners were quashed. After quoting section 14a (which may be noted here also) these observations were made by the Division Bench. Section 14a of the Act is in the following terms :-