Surya Prasad - (1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 2318 of 1979 against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1979 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in CRIMINAL Complaint Cases no. 711 of 1976, 713 of 1976 and 716 of 1976, which were ultimately consolidated with one and another, relating to the months of August, September and October, 1975 respectively and Complaint Case No. 711 of 1976 was treated as the leading case, for the purposes of evidence etc. CRIMINAL Appeal No 2319 of 1979 is against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1979 passed by the aforesaid Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 714 (State v. Col. J.D. Karwal and others) relating to the month of February, 1976 acquitting the opposite-parties.
(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 2320 of 1979 is against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1976 passed by the said Chief Judicial Magistrate in CRIMINAL Complaint Cases No. 710 of 1976, 712 of 1976 and 715 of 1976 which were consolidated with one and another and CRIMINAL Complaint Case No. 710 of 1976 was treated as the; leading case for the purposes of evidence etc. The accused were acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases through the aforesaid common judgment. These three criminal appeals have been consolidated with one and another in this Court for disposing of them through one common judgment because the parties, the nature of the evidence and the points involved therein are the same. The complaint case briefly stated is that the complainant Sri B. N. Bajpai was an Inspector appointed under section 13 (1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 for the State of Uttar Pradesh and was also a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party no. 1/ respondent no. 1, M/s. Amitabh Textile Mills, Ltd, situated at Prem Nagar, Dehradun is an establishment to which the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (Act No. 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) and the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 are applicable. The said establishement is a company within the meaning of the explanation to section 14-A of the Act. The accused-respondents no. 2 to 9 are the employers in relation to the said establishment within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Act and were thus responsible to the Company for the conduct of its affairs. The accused named in the complaint in pursuance of the provisions contained in paragraph 32 of the said Scheme deducted from the wages of the member/employees of the aforesaid establishment, the employees' share of provident fund contribution for the months of August, September and October, 1975 relating to the Criminal Appeal No. 2318 of 1979 (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd., Dehradun, through Col. J. D. Karwal, Occupier and others and for the month of February, 1976 (relating to the Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 1979) and for the months of November, 1975, December, 1975 and January, 1976 (relating to the Criminal Appeal No. 22(20 of 1979) with a view to remitting the same to the fund as required under paragraph 38(1) of the Scheme. They were required to pay to the fund, the employees and employer's share of contribution for the aforesaid months within 15 days of the close of each and every said month in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 30 and 38 (1) of the said Scheme. But they failed too do so. Consequently they committed the offences punishable under section 14 (1-A) (ab) of the Act read with section 14-A thereof. Similarly they failed to pay to the Fund, administrative charges for the aforesaid months and, therefore, committed the offence punishable under section 14 (1-A) (b) of the; Act read with section 14-A thereof. Despite issue of notices to the accused named above they did not remit the contributions and administrative charges till the date, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P., accorded! his sanction for their prosecution. The offences referred to above were continuous till then and even thereafter. Therefore, the afore-named Inspector filed the separate complaints after having obtained separate sanctions. The prosecution has examined the complainant B. N. Bajpai, PW 1 and he relied upon certain documents in support of its case.
(3.) THE accused have admitted almost all the facts of the complaint case. THEy have, however, stated that the amounts in question were deposited subsequently on priority basis. THE accused Col. J. D. Karwal has further stated that the amount in question could not be paid or deposited within the prescribed period for certain un-avoidable circumstances. The accused have examined K. D. Ansari (DW 1), Sukhdeo Mohan (DW 2) and Ramesh Kumar (DW 3) and relied upon certain documents in support of their contentions.;