J.B.GARG,J - (1.) GURPAL Singh a partner of M/s Shree Aarkishan Steels. G. T. Road, Khanna has challenged his prosecution under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code launched by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh. Camp Khanna, District Ludhiana and the framing of charges by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna on 17-9-1993.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the petitioner has alleged that he is a partner of a firm at Khanna, District Ludhiana and their books of accounts were inspected by the Insurance Inspector of Mandi Gobindgarh under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for the period 10/89 to 12/89 and the amount which was outstanding was Rs. 3755/- that thereafter the petitioner firm consulted their legal advisor and deposited Rs 1252/-, Rs. 1232/- and Rs. 1271/- (total Rs. 3755/-) for the period in question on 2-3-1990; that a show cause notice was received by the firm on 5/6-3-1990 as to why a complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code be not filed against the petitioner, that the petitioner, firm sent a reply on 13-3-1990 giving details of the deposits made by them in the State Bank of Patiala, Mandi Gobindgarh but still the complaint in question has been instituted and a charge bag also been framed against the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna on 17-9-1992 as mentioned above. The record shows that the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 5/6-3-1990. annexure P-2, as to why the sum of Rs. 1167.15 was not deposited and in case no reply was received within 15 days from the date of the notice action shall be taken under Section 406 read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner firm had deposited a sum of Rs. 1252/- in the State Bank of Patiala on 2-3-1990 as their contribution under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, annexure P-1 and intimated the Corporation on 13-3-1990 (annexure P-3).
(3.) WHEN the department itself had given a period of 15 days for depositing the amount of the employees contribution, it was not fair to launch prosecution. The petitioner is also not a public servant and the framing of a charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-6) against the partner of the petitioner firm was illegal.;