- (1.) This revisional application has been filed praying for quashing of the proceeding being C. R. No. 103 of 2001 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
(2.) Case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a company and the petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director of the said company. The company is engaged in production of tea. It is covered as per provisions of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'sai I Act'). Due to various reason like labour problem, loss of capital shortage of power and other factors, the company suffered huge loss and damages. Due to those reasons, which were beyond the control of the petitioners, they could not submit the return for the year 1999-2000 before the Provident Fund authorities in time Said return was subsequently filed on 27.3.2001 and was accepted by the authority. The petitioner-company paid the full Provident Fund dues and other contributions for the said period. On 5.3.2001 the opposite party No.1 lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri and or the basis of that C. R. No. 103 of 2001 under Section 14-1 Band 14-A (1) of 1 the said Act was started against the petitioners. It was alleged in the said complaint that the petitioners failed to submit the return for the year 1999-2000 in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. According to the petitioners, petitio ler No.2 being the Managing Director of the company is not concerned with day to day conduct of the affairs of the said company and as such, he canno be held liable for the alleged offence for which proceeding was started. The petitioners further claimed that all the relevant materials were not placed by the authority before the sanctioning authority and as such the sanction, as accorded is not valid. That apart, the petitioners also claimed that the opposite party/complainant failed to file the petition of complaint within the prescribed time Iimit as provided under Section 468 (2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as such it is palpable that criminal case was started after the prescribed time limit and so cognizance, as taken by the learned Magistrate, is clearly bad in law. Due to these reasons the petitioners have claimed that further continuance of the criminal case will be an abuse of the process of the Court and so the same is liable to be quashed.
(3.) As against this, Mr. Mihir Kundu, learned Advocate for the opposite party argued that the authority concerned after perusal of all the relevant papers accorded sanction of prosecution against the petitioners and as they violated the provisions of the Act, so the criminal case was started against the petitioners. He further contended that there is no merit in the submissions of the petitioners to the effect that the proceeding is liable to be quashed. As such, Mr. Kundu prayed that the revisional application should be dismissed.;