PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SURAJ BHAN DINESH KUMAR COTTON FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order nine, criminal appeals Crl. Appeals No. 436-DBA to 444DBA of 1982 are being disposed of as the. complaints filed under section 14 A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were dismissed on January 18, 1992 when the complainant did not put in appearance but complainant's counsel was present. In Crl. Appeals Nos. 436-DBA, 438-DBA and 439-DBA of 1982 there were two accused; Suraj Bhan and Megh Nath, out of them Suraj Bhan is stated to have died. However, that will not make any difference as the complaint against Megh Nath, co-accused, can still proceed if the appeals are allowed.

(2.) ALTHOUGH in the impugned order is stated that the accused were discharged while dismissing the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant, in fact it will amount to acquittal as contemplated under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short called "the Code") which provision is applicable to trial of summons cases by Magistrate Chapter XX and hence the appeals would be maintainable.

(3.) SECTION 256 of the Code which is applicable to summons cases is reproduced as under :