B.K. RAJAKRISHNAN Vs. BALADEV DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30 -9 -1982 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack acquitting the Respondent of the offence under Section 85(a) and (e) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated, are that the Respondent was the owner and proprietor of the establishment run under the name and style of M/s. G.B printers at Saheednagar, Bhubaneswar. The Inspector of the Directorate of S.S.I. Corporation visited the establishment of the Respondent on 12 -5 -1977, and found that although it was an establishment under the provisions of the Act, yet it had violated certain provisions of the Act. The Respondent did not pay the contributions within the stipulated time as required, under Sections 39 and 40 of the Act read with Regulations 29 and 31 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for short 'the Regulation'). It was further detected that apart from failure to pay contribution for the period from 1 -4 -1377 to 31 -12 -1977, the Respondent also did not submit contribution stamps along with the return of contribution cards in Form No. 6 as required under Regulation 26 of the Regulation within the stipulated period for these violations the Respondent was prosecuted under Section 85(a) and (e) of tile Act. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the materials on record found the Respondent guilty of the offence under Section 85(a)(e) of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 150/ - in default to undergo S.I. for 15 days. The Respondent was directed to pay the contribution charges and to submit the return within three months from the date of the order.

(3.) DURING the heating of the appeal, although several contentions have been raised on behalf of the Respondent to support the order of acquittal, yet I do not propose to deal with those matters, namely, whether the Respondent is an establishment under the Act, whether he was liable to pay the contribution at the material time and whether he committed the statutory violations. All these facts have been concluded by both the Courts below by the findings against the Respondent. The only question of law on which the order of acquittal is based is the bar of limitation. I would, therefore, deal only with this matter to find out if the acquittal is proper on this technical ground. Prosecution has been launched for non -payment of contribution for the period from 1 -4 -1977 to 31 -12 -1977 as would appear from the impugned judgment, as also from the prosecution report. This fact is also not disputed before me. It is also not disputed that prosecution report has been filed in Court on 17 -6 -1978. In computing the period of limitation of six months, the learned appellate Court found that the date of the inspection by the Inspector being on 12 -5 -1977 and the prosecution having been filed no 17 -6 -1978 it was beyond the period of limitation and as such prosecution is not maintainable.