SARKAR Vs. M P T AND SPECIAL MAINTENANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Provident Fund Inspector appointed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the complainant of the Criminal Case No. 97 (M) of 1977, in which the opposite parties were arrayed aa accused has come to this Court in Criminal revision for setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna dated 20-5-1978 by which recalling his previous order dated 12-1-1977 passed in that case taking cognizance against the opposite parties, he dismissed the complaint.

(2.) On 12.1, 1977, the petitioner, as complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties, all connected with the Bihar State Electricity Board, for their prosecution under section 14 of the Act read with para 96 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') alleging infraction of the relevant provisions on 25-10-72, 25-11-72 and 25-12-72. On receipt of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance in the case on that date itself, namely, 12-1-1977 under section 14 of the Act and ordered for issue of processes against the opposite party. On 18-5-1977, the Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred this case for disposal before a Judicial Magistrate 1st class. Some of the opposite parties appeared before the transferee court while others did not and steps were taken by the transferee court for issue of warrant against them. On 15-3-1978, the transfer court adjourned the case to 25-4-1978 for the presence of the accused. On 25-4-1978, the Chief Judicial Magistrate as it appears, recalled this case to his file from the transferee court and ordered for its being put up on 5-5-1978 for hearing and subsequently he adjourned it to 20-5-1978 for hearing.

(3.) On 20-5-1978, a petition was filed on behalf of the opposite party raising the plea that cognizance having been taken beyond the period of limitation, as provided in section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the order dated 12-1-1977 was illegal and bad in law. A prayer was therefore, made to hear this petition on the point of limitation, dismiss the case and discharge the petitioner. Although a copy of this petition appears to have been served on the other side on 19-5-1978, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without hearing the petitioner the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order and holding therein that cognizance having been taken on 12-1-1977 after the period of limitation this order was void ab initio and shall be deemed to be nonexistent, he recalled that order and dismissed the complaint' and the petitioner has challenged this order in this criminal revision.