THE STATE Vs. SK. DIJIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal passed by Sri A.K. Patra, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Balasore.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the accused (Respondent herein) was the proprietor of Sk. Diljan Bus Service which was an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Inspite of registered notice from the Provident, Fund Commissioner the accused did not deposit the Provident Fund contributions and did not submit the statutory returns for the period between December, 1966 and February, 1967, and thus contravened the provisions ' of paragraphs 36 and 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme), and was, therefore, punishable under Section 14 of the Act.

(3.) THE prosecution examined only the Provident Fund Inspector. He states that the provisions of the Act were made applicable, under Notification No. G.S.R. 1013 dated 29.7.1961 published in the Gazette of India dated 6th August, 1961, to Sk. Diljan Bus Service, of which the accused Respondent was the proprietor. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by notice No. 2172 dated 21 -3 -1967 (Ext. 1) asked the accused to deposit the Provident fund contribution and to submit the statutory returns for the period between December, 1966 and February, 1967, but the accused did not submit the aforesaid returns nor did he deposit the said contributions, and 80 this prosecution was launched against him. He states that on the date of his visit he found more than 20 persons in the employment of the aforesaid firm. P.w. 1 has admitted in cross -examination that he did not take any statement from any of the employees in the said establishment during his visit to the firm. The relevant registers of the firm showing the number of employees in the firm and/or their attendance or engagement therein have not been seized and exhibited in this case. His statement to the above effect is vague and indefinite as he does not state the exact number of persons he found employed on that date. He does not also state if the aforesaid indefinite number of more than 20 persons were in employment of the said establishment in the regular course of its business. The Court below has taken Into consideration the evidence of p.w. 1, an employee of the firm, to the effect that between December, 1966 and February, 1967 the accused had not employed 20 or more persons at any time, that during that period only 10 to 12 persons were working under the accused and that about 3 years back the accused applied to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner not to apply the provisions of the Act to his establishment and the said application bad not been disposed of.