JODHPUR WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eleven revision petitions involve a common question of law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, Jodhpur Woollen Mills Limited, Jodhpur, is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act and was engaged in manufacturing of woollen threads at Jodhpur. Petitioner No. 2, Mr. Subhash Kankaria is the Joint Managing Director while petitioner No. 3 Mr. S. G. Kale is the Commercial Officer of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1, under para No. 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, was required to pay the employer's contribution including the employees' contribution after deducting the same from their salary, within fifteen days of the close of every month. The petitioners, though deducted the employees' contribution from their wages during the period from March, 198 4/12/1986 and deposited the employees' contribution but did not deposit the employer's contribution and, thus, committed thirty-three offences punishable under Sections 14 and 14-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Provident Fund Inspector, Jodhpur, who was specially authorised to launch the prosecution, therefore, filed eleven complaints for thirty-three distinct offences against the petitioners in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur. Each complaint contained three offences of the same kind committed by the accused-petitioners within three months. During the pendency of the proceedings, two applications were moved by the accused-petitioners for consolidating of all the eleven cases and to hold a joint trial. These applications, moved under Sections 218, 219, 220, 221 and 223, Cr. P.C. for consolidating the cases, were opposed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate, by its order dated 24-8-93, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners and refused to consolidate the eleven cases. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred these eleven revision petitions.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the proviso appended to Section 218, Cr. P.C., the accused have a right to ask for the joint trial by way of moving an application in writing and if no prejudice is caused to the accused by the joint trial/joint charges then the Magistrate can try together all or any number of such charges framed against such person. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proviso appended to Section 218, Cr. P.C. carves out an exception to the main Section apart from other exceptions contained in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223, Cr. P.C. and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed an error in refusing to consolidate the cases and to hold a joint trial. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over. Harswaroop v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 WLN (UC) 143 and Manohar Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1981 Cri LJ 1563 (Madh Pra). The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that under Section 218(1), Cr. P.C., it is the discretion of the learned Magistrate whether to consolidate the cases and try them as one and if he did not think it proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners then no illegality appears to have been committed by the learned Magistrate. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that according to Sub-Section (2) of Section 218, nothing in Sub-Section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223, Cr. P.C. and as per Section 219, Cr. P.C., only three offences of the same kind shall be charged with and tried at one trial.