BHAGCHAND JAIN Vs. P F INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these cases under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are challenging the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Court, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas over the same matter involving the same person and over the same incident and as such all those cases, filed challenging the respective order in different complaint cases over the self-same issue are taken up together and covered by this single judgment.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that at one point of time he was the Director of Kankinara Company Limited, the accused No. 1 in all the complaint cases before the learned Magistrate over the same issue namely complaint Case No. C/302/90, complaint Case No. C/303/90, complaint Case No. C/304/90 and 3 complaint Case No. C/305/90 and complaint Case No. C/308/90. The petitioner resigned from the same Company in 1989. The O.P. a Provident Fund Inspector lodged the aforesaid complaint against the Company as above implicating also the petitioner among others alleging commission of offence under Section 14(2-A) read with Section 14-A (1) and 14-A (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner, one of the accused persons appeared and was granted bail and also exemption was accorded to him from personal appearance under Section 205, Cr. P.C. On the date fixed for submission of the service return an appearance of the petitioner although he was represented by the learned Advocate as per permission accorded. The learned Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the accused-company in the name of the present petitioner, although the learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted to the Court that the petitioner was on Court bail authorised to be represented by the Advocate and the petitioner was not authorised by the Company to represent it and as such for any lapse on the part of the Company the petitioner could not be held responsible. The learned Magistrate, however, mechanically directed the petitioner to represent the Company although at no point of time the Company appointed the petitioner to represent it for the purpose of enquiry or trial. The act of the learned Magistrate about issuing warrant was, therefore, illegal. The petitioner prays for quashing that order as impugned in these cases.

(3.) The O.P. appears through the learned Advocate. Heard learned Advocates of both the parties. The learned Advocate for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was never authorised to represent the Company and as such he cannot be held responsible for non-appearance of the Company on the relevant date, as Company should be represented by the authorised person. Although the petitioner was Director of the accused-company on certain point of time, he resigned from the office in 1989 and in respect of the complaint in 1990 he cannot have any responsibility. But even then he appeared and although he himself was permitted to be represented by the learned Advocate, as the Company failed to take steps, the petitioner was held responsible without rhyme and reason and for that warrant was issued against the petitioner, instead the person who was authorised to represent the Company. The learned Advocate further argues that when the lapse was on the part of the Company it was illegal on the part of the learned magistrate to try to enforce its attendance by issuing warrant against any Director or Principal Officer as the only remedy in such a case is of imposing monetary penalty. The learned Advocate relies on a ruling per the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. BHATTACHARYA in C.R. No. 2570 of 1995.