- (1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted. Appellant has been convicted under section 85 (e) read with Section 85-A of the employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the 'act' for short). He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00. The conviction was made by the High Court in reversal of an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. This appeal is in challenge of the said conviction and sentence passed on him.
(2.) It is unnecessary for us to consider the sustainability of the conviction and sentence 1 from any legalistic point of view. The employees' State Insurance Corporation has introduced a scheme called "amnesty scheme for withdrawal of Criminal Cases against the Insured Persons and Employees; filed under Sections 84 and 85 of the ESI Act, respectively". The said scheme was introduced on February 1, 2000 which was applicable to persons against whom prosecution was pending till July 31, 200ft appellant was desirous of availing himself to the benefit of the said scheme. He compliant with the conditions specified in the scheme and then he prayed for withdrawal of the prosecution by letter dated April 19,2000. The difficulty pointed out against the appellant was that the High Court judgment was date january 27, 2000 by which he was conviction and the scheme was introduced only 4 day thereafter.
(3.) The interval between the date of judgment and introduction of the scheme is to insignificant for denial of the benefit to the appellant, though special leave petition was filed by the appellant subsequent thereto hence, we are inclined to push this appellant also into the purview of the scheme. The result of that exercise is that the prosecution launched against the appellant would stand withdrawn. As a corollary we state that the appellant need not go back to jail for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.;