LAWS(JHAR)-2010-3-13

BADAL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On March 29, 2010
BADAL KUMAR GHOSH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 2758(M) of 2002 (T.R. No. 1865 of 2006) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi including the order dated 26.11.2002 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance of the offence under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) It appears that petitioner's sweet meat shop being run in the name and style of 'Sweet Corner' at Ashok Nagar, Ranchi when was inspected by the Insurance Inspector in the month of December, 1999, it was found that the employer had engaged 12 employees in the process of manufacturing of sweet meat in his shop falling within the definition of 'factory' as defined in Section 2(12)(a) of the Act and as such, the employer was liable to pay contribution for the employees for the period from April, 1999 to 30.9.2001 under Section 40 read with Section 39 of the Act within the time prescribed but no such contribution had been deposited with the said insurance and, therefore, a complaint was lodged in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging therein that on account of non-deposit of the contribution, the petitioner committed offence under Section 85(a) of the Act. Upon which, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 26.11.2002 under Section 85(a) of the Act against the petitioner.

(3.) In course of time, under the order of the Patna High Court, an order was passed on 4.7.2006 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna to transfer the case to the court of competent jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. Thereupon record was received in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 2.8.2006. Thereafter the petitioner on receiving notice, appeared in the case and then police paper was supplied to the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Thereupon, substance of accusation was explained on 7.2.2007 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.