PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR KOTA Vs. BHAGI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 (4) Cr. P. C. against the judgment dated 15. 11. 1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. 311/1983 whereby he had acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 14 (1-A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused appellant in the Court of learned Magistrate under the aforesaid Act, wherein it was submitted that the complainant is a public servant under Section 21 of the IPC and is an Inspector appointed under section 13 of the Act of 1952. It has further been submitted that M/s. Durga Talkies, Karauli, is covered under the Act of 1952 as well as the Employees Family Pension Scheme,1971 and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme,1952. It has also been submitted in the complaint that the accused respondent No. 1,2 and 3 are the responsible persons for establishment and are also responsible for its management. According to the complainant, the respondents should have complied with the provisions of the Act and under the Scheme of 1952 they should have deposited the contributions by 15th day of every month. It is stated in the complaint that the respondents did not deposit an amount of Rs. 249/- as employer's share and Rs. 249/- as employee's share and administrative charge for the period from December,1982 to February,1983. According to the complainant , the total amount comes to Rs. 881/ -. THErefore, it is stated in the complaint that the aforesaid offences have been committed by the respondents. A sanction was granted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, for prosecution of the accused, on 19. 7. 1983.

(3.) IN my opinion, the learned trial Court has committed no error in passing the order whereby he had acquitted the respondents for all the offences alleged against them under the Act of 1952. It would be suffice to say that the complainant has not led any evidence, worth the name, to show that the Act of 1952 is applicable in this case because the minimum employees required to be employed under the Act, had been so done by this unit. Apart from it there has been no evidence to show that at any point of time, earlier the provisions of the Act of 1952 had been made applicable to this unit and any contribution had been so deposited by the employer. Merely allotment of any Code No. would not prove, in a criminal proceeding, that the Act of 1952 had at any point of time earlier was made applicable and the contribution had been deposited. IN the absence of any evidence to that effect, it cannot be presumed that the Act of 1952 was already applicable and by virtue of Section (1) (5) of the Act of 1952, even reduction in number of employees at any subsequent point of time would not make any difference and the Act would continue to be applicable. Moreover, the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is innocent and the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by the findings of the trial Court. Further more, the accused is entitled to benefit of any doubt.