PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR JAIPUR Vs. P.M. RUNGTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused respondents.

(2.) This appeal has been filed by Provident Fund Inspector, Jaipur against the accused respondents P.M. Rungta, K.M. Rungta, K.P. Rungta, Mukund Rungta, who are directors of M/s. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Man Industrial Corporation Limited, Jaipur, against the order dated Feb. 9, 2001 of Judicial Magistrate No. 17 Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 627 of 1987 whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the offences under sections 14 and 14-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (in short Act of 1952) and the offences under Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (in short Scheme of 1952).

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that P.C. Kodiwal, Provident Fund Inspector filed a complaint on July 28, 1984 before the competent Court under sections 14 and 14-A of the Act of 1952 and Scheme of 1952 stating that he has been appointed as an Inspector under section 13 of the Act of 1952 and he is a public servant as per section 21 of IPC. The provisions of Act of 1952 and Scheme of 1952 are applicable on the accused establishment namely M/s. Man Industrial Corporation and Code No. RJ-21 was allotted to this establishment. Accused respondents 1 to 4 are its directors and they are responsible persons of the establishment and are liable to comply with the provisions of Act of 1952 and Scheme of 1952 in respect of the establishment. The accused respondents were liable to deposit the amount of Employees and Employees share of PF within 15 days from the close of every month. However the accused respondents failed to deposit the amount relating to PF contribution. In this manner the accused respondents committed offence under sections 14 and 14-A of the Act of 1952 and paragraphs 30 and 38 of the Scheme of 1952 in the months of Nov. Dec. 1983 and Jan. 1984. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution of the accused respondents. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused respondents. Charge was read over to all the accused respondents but the accused respondents denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried. P.C. Kodiwal, complainant examined himself as PW. 1. The statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated Feb. 9, 2001 acquitted the accused respondents. Hence this appeal has been filed against that order.