G D SINGH ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs. KOSHI REFINERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been taken up for analogous hearing because the cases in which judgments were passed by the lower Court were based on same facts and law. In the aforesaid cases, complainant was G.D. Singh, Enforcement Officer appointed under Section 13 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The enforcement officer filed complaint stating therein that the proprietor of Koshi Refinery at Chakradaha P.S. Forbesganj, Distt. Purnea and its officials (respondents of the aforesaid appeals) had failed to deposit; companies share of the employees provident fund and they also failed to submit documents and papers in this connection. They had thus, violated the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. So, they were punishable under Sections 14(1-A), 14(2) and 14-A of the aforesaid Act read with paragraph 76(d) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Judgments rendered by the S.D.J.M., Ararla, dated September 29, 1991 was that the complainant had failed to adduce any evidence in support of the allegations. So, the Trial Court held that the cases under reference suffered from total want of evidence. Accordingly, judgment of acquittal was passed.

(2.) The cases in which no evidence at all is led in support of the allegations are bound to be ended in acquittal of the persons against whom cases are filed. No Court of law can take the allegations as gospel truth for want of the evidence in support of the same. So, there is no question for holding the judgments of the Court below to suffer from any kind of perversity in law.

(3.) In the result, there is no merit in these appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed.