STATE Vs. RAMESWARLAL MALIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated September 22, 1984 passed by the S.D. J.M. Sadar, Cuttack in 2(c) C.C. No. 367 of 1983 acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 14(1-A) and 14-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Rameswarlal Maliram Binamata Guraku Factory is an industry manufacturing Guraku since 1960. Respondent No. 2 Maliram Agarwalla and respondent No. 3 Nanda Kishore Agarwalla are the two partners in charge of the business of the industry. According to the appellant, the Inspector of Provident Fund in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, respondent No. 1 was a covered establishment under the Act having employed more than twenty employees and was registered under the Act vide G.S.R. No. 895 dated June 1, 1966 on the basis of the written information (Ext. 2) furnished by the management through its partner Maliram Agarwalla (respondent No. 2) on September 21, 1966 during the visit of Shri H.C. Mohapatra (p.w.2), the then Inspector of Provident Fund. It is alleged that in spite of registration of the firm under the Act, the respondents failed to pay the Provident Fund contributions of the employees and the employer for the months of May, 1982 and June, 1982 amounting to Rs. 98.00 only as required under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') in spite of service of notice on them issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Hence prosecution was launched by p.w.1 Shri D. Pradhan against the respondents for alleged commission of offences under Sections 14(1-A) and 14-A of the Act.

(3.) In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined only two p.ws of whom p.w. 1 Duryodhan Pradhan is the Inspector of Provident Fund, Bhubaneswar who had submitted the prosecution report against the accused persons and p.w. 2 Shri H.C. Mohapatra is another Inspector of Provident Fund, Orissa, Bhubaneswar who had visited the factory on September 21, 1966 and on whose report the factory was registered under the Act. Ext. 1 is the sanction order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated May 11, 1983 to prosecute the accused persons. Ext. 2 is the carbon copy of the writing alleged to be in the hand of respondent No. 2 Maliram Agarwalla to the effect that there were nine employees in the establishment including one car driver and one salesman, besides twelve female labourers engaged on daily wage basis and that the factory was started since 1960. Ext. 3 is a copy of the notice issued to respondent No. 1. Ext. 4 is the copy of the assessment order made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in respect of respondent No. 1.