PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR, CHANDIGARH Vs. I.D. MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have a bunch of eight appeals filed by the Provident Fund Inspector against the order of the trial Court by which the accused-Mr. I.D. Mehta has been acquitted. Applications under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed for the grant of special leave to appeal. It is prayed that leave be granted and the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the facts in Criminal Misc. No. 374-MA of 2000. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) ACCORDING to the applicant, a complaint had been filed alleging that the accused had failed to make deposits of Rs. 34.10, Rs. 34.80 and Rs. 32.25 by the due dates viz. May 15, June 15 and July 15, 1994. As such, he was alleged to have committed offence under para 38 of the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with Sections 6, 6A, 14(1A) and 14-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge (as his Lordship then was) found that "the order of the Court below regarding conviction of the accused is not sustainable as he has not been convicted of the charges framed." On this basis, it was observed that "I have no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant and direct the trial Court to, after hearing arguments, pass a fresh judgment in accordance with law." Thus, the appeal was accepted. The order of conviction and sentence was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court "to pass a fresh judgment in accordance with law."