Prabir Kumar Samanta, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition, the writ petitioners have challenged the taking of cognizance by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the complaints filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and have accordingly prayed for quashing of the same.
(2.) Undisputedly three complaints were filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for taking cognizance of the offence committed under Section 85 (a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as E. S. I. Act, 1948) for three different periods. On the basis of the aforesaid three complaints three criminal cases bearing No. C/1108/94, C/1109/94 and C/1110/94 were registered some time in the month of July, 1994 and summons were issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the name of the petitioners who are company, Managing Director and a Director of the petitioner/company respectively.
(3.) The points raised in this writ petition are that Sub-section g(i) of Section 85 having made the offence under Sub-section (a) of Section 85 punishable with compulsory imprisonment, the petitioner/company, a juristic person cannot be asked to suffer imprisonment and again if the company cannot be made liable for the offence since it prescribed compulsory imprisonment, its Managing Director and a Director respectively being not the principal employers as per the definition under Section 2 (17) of E.S.I. Act, 1948 the complaints against them are not maintainable and lastly the complaints lack ingredients as to the liability and responsibility of the Managing Director and a Director of the said company to comply with the provisions of E.S.I. Act, 1948.;