JAGJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners preferring this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the whole proceeding of Trial No. 60 of 1996 so pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in which vide order dated 28.10.1980, the cognizance of offence is so taken, against the present petitioners under Section 14-AA of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') against the accused-persons figuring here as petitioners.

(2.) The complainant of this case is Inspector, Provident Fund, Muzaffarpur and the written report so given by him, a photo copy of which is filed, marked as Annexure-2, reveals with regard to the failure on the part of the present petitioners as to pay the deposited linked insurance contributions for the month of July 1979 to September 1979. The cognizance was so taken on 28.10.1980, a copy of which is filed and marked as Annexure-3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even the ingredients of Section 14-AA of the Act is not met with further, by certificate case, the amount as alleged not been paid under the deposit made in the' insurance contribution scheme has been realized and in support of his contention, a reference is made to Annexure-5. It has also been submitted that for the cognizance of the offence so taken on 28.10.1980, the matter was lingering till 1996 when this petition was so filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and in between along 16 years even the chaxge-sheet was not filed and the trial has not, commenced and the matter was so proceeding with smail's pace. That being the position by also claiming himself to be fortified by a reported case 1996 (2) P.L.J.R. 122 in the case of "Common Cause", A registered Society, through its Director v. Union of India and Ors. by particularly referring to its paragraph 2(e) at page 125, it is pointed out that it is a fit case in which the whole proceeding be, thus, quashed. It. has also been submitted that. under the provisions of Section 14-AA of the Act, the punishment was for one year only. Paragraph 2(e) of the reported case so cited runs as under: (e) Where the case pending in criminal Courts under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment up to one year with or without line, and if such pendency is for more than one year and if in such cases trials have still not commenced, the criminal Court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases. In all fairness, it has been brought to notice that after the amendment of Section 14-AA of the Act, the. punishment is enhanced to five years but in the present case since the ingredients of Section 14-AA is not met with, that being the position, leaving aside the other points, the proceeding is fit to be quashed.

(3.) None appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 though there was due service and the name of the lawyer for O.P. No. 2 has also been shown in the cause list Mr. D.P. Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there happened to be an allegation of misappropriation of amount and, thus, prima facie, material was before the Court below as to take cognizance after filing the complaint was so taken and if they are innocent, the petitioners can very well be getting the chance to make such prayer having no material before the trial in course of trial.