G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) IN these ten connected matters petitioners claimed exemption from attendance in proceedings in criminal cases under the Employees Provident Fund & Family Pension Act, 1952. Application for personal attendance under sections 205 and 317 Cr. P. C. has been rejected. The applicants have, therefore, approached this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with section 397 Cr. P. C.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the liability under the Act is more of civil nature though technically they are criminal offences. IT is also conceded that the amount of the Provident Fund has been deposited during the pendency of these cases. In all, the Management has deposited about Rs. 4,93,745-75 for workmen working in the factory and an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- has been deposited for the workmen who are working in the quarry admitted by both parties. The reasons given for rejection of the application for exemption from attendance are not of any substantial nature. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent agreed that principal object of the attendance of the accused is for his own benefit. It has been laid down in Bhagwan Das vs. State through Badri Prasad (1) that the law requires the presence of the accused during the course of the trial more to safeguard his interests than to cause inconvenience. In Halen Rubber Industries Kotteyam vs. State of Kerala (2) it has been held that in technical cases not involving moral turpitude, the Courts should invariably exempt accused from personal attendance where the accused happens to be busy business people, industrialists, ladies, old and sickly persons, factory workers and labourers. In In re Ummal Hasanath (3) the Madras High Court held that under section 561a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the powers of the High Court are wide enough to ask the Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance of the accused. In S. P. Sinha vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) (4), the Calcutta High Court held that insistence of personal attendance will circumscribe the provisions of sec. 366 (2 ). Accused were permitted to appear through their pleader under section 205 for purposes even for pleading guilt on behalf of the accused.
(3.) THIS court in S. B. Criminal Revision No. 275 of 1977 K. C. Ghoshal vs. Provident Fund Inspector, Kota granted the exemption. It was observed that keeping in view the nature of the accusation and the fact that the entire amount of Provident Fund and Family Pension has been paid, the exemption of attendance of the accused would be in the interest of justice. This judgment of this Court has been circumvented by the lower court on the ground that the accused earlier was not in employment of Jaipur Udyog Ltd. but later on now he has joined it. The distinction drawn by the court below is not correct both on facts and also on the principle of law which has been enunciated by the various courts which have been referred to above. There is no doubt that this is a technical offence and the amount has been deposited. That being so, the application for exemption should have been granted. I am of the opinion that the lower court has failed to exercise jurisdiction which undoubtedly it had to grant exemption under section 205 Cr. P. C. warranting interference under section 482 Cr. P. C. ;