STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DURYODHAN PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. K. C. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the appellant, challenges the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by Mrs. B. Devi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar, bolding the respondent, admittedly the owner and employer of Mis. Panda Worksbop at Jagatpur, to be not guilty under Section 14(2) of the EmployeesT Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) read with Paragraph 76(b) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 for non-submission of monthly returns for the months of July to September, 1976, as required under Paragraph 36 of the Scheme, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, as unreasonable calling for interference by this Court. Mr. A. Biswal, the learned counsel for the Trespondent, bas, however, invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial court on the basis of the evidence placed before it and has submitted that the view taken by the trial court is reasonably possible and no interference is called for in an appeal against acquittal.

(2.) In order to hold the respondent liable, the workshop of which he was the owner and employer must come under Section 1 (3)(a) of the Act and it must have been a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or more persons were employed. In the instant case, the two Inspectors (P.Ws. 1 and 2) had not, on their own showing, visited the workshop in question at any time. They had no personal knowledge or knowledge derived from official records except a report said to have been made by another Inspector, namely, Mr. B. K. Bhattacharjee, that twenty or more persons had been employed in the workshop at the relevant time. The trial court took note of this aspect and the fact that the report made by Mr. Bhattacharjee had not been produced and admitted in evidence. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Mr. Bhattacharjee was undoubtedly a material witness. He had not been examined for the prosecution at the trial. It could not, therefore, be said on the materials placed before the trial court that the workshop of which the respondent was the owner and employer was a factory within the meaning of- Section 1(3)(a) of the Act. The order of acquittal cannot be assailed.

(3.) The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.