MD REYAZUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to invoke the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the 'Code') for quashing of their criminal prosecution for offences under sections 14 (1 -A) and 14 (1 -B) of the Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act 1952 hereinafter the 'Act') and Para 76 (d) of Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with section 14(2) and 14 -A(1) of the Act. The order dated 24.9.90/6.10.90 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and subsequent proceedings pending before the learned judicial Magistrate, Nalanda vide case No. 123C/90 are also sought to be quashed.

(2.) A complaint (Annexure -1) was filed by the Provident Fund Inspector (O.P No.2) stating that petitioner No.3 M/s. Longia Biri Company (hereinafter the 'Company') is an establishment within the meaning of the Act, and the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter 'P.F. Scheme'), the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter 'Insurance Scheme') are applicable to the said establishment with effect from 1.5.1977. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were described as employers within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act and under an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder. The allegations are contained in para 5 of a cyclostyled complaint petition divided into 7 sub -paragraph Nos. (a) to (g) all of them have been penned through except sub -paragraph(e). Para 5(e) is to the effect that the accused -petitioners failed to pay to the insurance fund the amount of administrative charges for the months of 7/77 to 11/77 within 15. days of the close of the each said month in accordance with the provisions of sections 6C(4) and paragraph 8 of the Insurance Scheme, and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 14(1 -B), 14(2) and 14. -A of the Act. The complaint petition does not mention in so many words the actual amount of administrative charges the petitioners had failed to pay. However, the order of sanction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Bihar, Patna (hereinafter the 'RPFC') under section 14 -AC of the Act mentions the amount of administrative charges for the period in question as Rs. 539.85 paisa. The said order of sanction was enclosed with the complaint petition and is part of Annexure -1.

(3.) SRI B.K. Sinha learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the casual and mechanical manner in which the complaint petition was filed and the impugned order taking cognizance was passed is evident from the fact that the complaint petition itself mentions that it was a complaint for prosecution for offences committed by the accused persons punishable under section 14(1 -A), 14(1 -B) of the Act and para 76 (d) of the Provident Fund Scheme read with section 14(2) and 14 -A(1) of the Act and to the same effect is the prayer made to the court to take cognizance in para 11 of the complaint petition. The impugned order taking cognizance also refers to the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Provident Fund Scheme under which the complaint had been filed and to have taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences. The complaint petition thus does not purport to have been filed for taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 14(1 -A), 14(2) and 14 -A of the Act and para 8 of the Insurance Scheme read with section 6 -C(4) of the Act for which sanction had been accorded by the prescribed authority within the meaning of section 14AC of the Act. Section 14 -AC of the Act reads as follows: "Cognizance and trial of offences. - (1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, the Scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, in this behalf, by an Inspector appointed under Section 13." From what has been stated above there is no room for doubt that the court had taken cognizance for offences for which no sanction had been accorded and had not taken cognizance of offences for which such sanction had been accorded. It is all too evident that as per allegations contained in the complaint petition the petitioners had committed offences under the Act for violation of the provisions of the Insurance Scheme and for which sanction had been accorded but the complaint had been filed with a prayer for taking cognizance for committing offences under the Act for violation of the provisions of the Provident Fund Scheme and the court had also taken cognizance of such offences without any order of sanction. The impugned order taking cognizance is thus liable for being quashed for non -compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 14 -AC of the Act.