- (1.) O. P. Jain, J. This judgment will dis pose of the above bunch of 102 applications filed under Section 182, Cr. P. C. The facts and the parties in all the above cases are almost identical. All the petitions have been filed by Surendra Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Pramod Kumar who are Chairman, Direc tor and Manager respectively of a company known as M/s. Tiger Hardware and Tools Limited, Marris Road, Aligarh. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of petitioner No. 1. The respondents are State of Uttar Pradesh. Provident Fund Inspector, Agra and Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner, Kanpur.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2, Provident Fund Inspector, filed a complaint against the petitioners and the Company for offences under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Schemes framed thereunder. The petitioners have been prosecuted for failure to deposit the Provident Fund amount. The period of default is different in each case. In application No. 6043 of 1985 the complaint relates to non-payment of Insurance Fund for the months of August, 1978, September, 1978 and October, 1978. In different cases the period of default is different and it is not necessary to mention the same because it is not relevant for our purpose. For the sake of convenience the facts of the case may be narrated from Case No. 6043/85. The Provident Fund Inspector lodged a complaint (Annexure-1 to the Petition) on 23rd March, 1979 alleging that he is an Inspector appointed under Section 13 (1) of the Act and that M/s Tiger Hardware and Tools Ltd. is an establishment to which the provisions of the Act and Schemes framed under the Act are applicable. M/s. Tiger Hardware and Tools Ltd. , Marris Road, Aligarh is a company within the meaning of Explanation to Section 14-A of the Act and accused Nos. 2,3 and 4 (petitioners in this Court) are the Chairman, Director, oc cupier and Manager respectively of the aforesaid establishment. The accused have failed to pay to the Insurance Fund the amount of employers share of contribution for the months of August, 1978, September, 1978 and October, 1978 within fifteen days of the close of each said month in accord ance with the provisions of Section 60 (2) of the Act and paragraph 8 of the Insurance Scheme and have thereby committed an of fence punishable under Section 14 (1b) of the Act read with Section 14-A of the Act, Almost similar allegations have been made in the other cases and the difference is only with regard to the period or the Scheme. On 16th March, 1983 the present petitioners who were the accused in the court below filed preliminary objections (Annexure-2 in petition No. 6043/85) and contended that the complaint has been filed without previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. It was fur ther contended that the sanction which has been filed is in a printed cyclostyled form and has been signed in a routine manner by the sanctioning authority. Another objec tion raised by the petitioners was that the provisions of section 14-A of the Act have not been complied with inasmuch as several persons have been prosecuted as accused without assigning their respective role, duties and liabilities.
(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the preliminary objection was filed, fixed 15th April, 1983 for arguments on the preliminary objec tions. On 3rd May, 1985 order Annexure-4 was passed and the case was adjourned to 16th April, 1985 for prosecution evidence. The grievance of the petitioners is that the court below fixed the case for evidence without finally disposing of the objections raised by them. In criminal case No. 2816 of 1985 and 15 other cases the petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Sessions against the summoning orders passed by the trial court and the revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 16-9-85 vide Annexure-3 to Criminal Misc. Application No. 2816 of 1985.;