RAMA KANT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated June 16, 2001, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Case No. 567 (M) of 1990, whereby the petitioners' prayer for discharge from the case was rejected.

(2.) It has been submitted by the revisionist lawyer that initially four accused persons were prosecuted and the petitioners before this Court who were Chairman and Director of the Company namely, Ether (India) Limited, Jashidih, were not liable for contributing to the company's share of the Employees' Provident Fund. Moreover they are the Chairman and the Director and they are also not personally concerned with the day to day working of the company so much so that they can be fastened with the liability to make the contribution of the employer's share to the Employees' Provident Fund. Moreover, the revisionist could not come under the definition of the occupier of the company. So they would not be liable for prosecution, hence they were entitled to discharge.

(3.) Admittedly, the revisionist deposited the arrears of employees provident fund after the cognizance was taken against them so they admit their liability to deposit the arrears of the company's share of provident fund of the employees. The Chairman and Director cannot be excluded from the purview of the word "Employer" under Section 2 Sub-clause (17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. In such circumstances, if they were prosecuted as the employer of the company, I do not think that their prosecution was illegal or irregular. Moreover, the impugned order was passed at the stage of framing of the charge. The revisionist will be free to take a plea during the course of trial that they were not personally liable for making contribution of the company's share to the Employees Provident Fund. But since the cognizance order in the case was passed which remained unchallenged the revisionist also did not deserve to be discharged. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, this revision is dismissed.