Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Prasad - (1.) IN spite of step being taken for substituted service of notice, opposite party No. 2 did not chose to appear in this case. Accordingly, heard Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Learned Counsel appearing for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 2008 of 2008 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application are that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint bearing No. 2008 of 2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad alleging therein that provident fund amount deposited in his account to the extent of Rs. 37,452/ - for the period from July, 2005 to June, 2006 maintained by C.M.P.F was not paid, though he did approach before the Provident Fund Commissioner at several occasions. On such complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was taken, vide order dated 25.8.2009. That order is under challenge. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a specific case of the complainant that the amount which was due to be paid towards provident fund from July, 2005 to June, 2006 was not paid whereas this petitioner did join in the office as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 15.2.2007 and thereby the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence. The document on which the petitioner is relying appears to be unimpeachable in character and thereby at this stage, reliance can be placed in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi [ : (2005) 1 SCC 568] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court can put his reliance on the document which is sterling in character.
(3.) THUS , it appears that the petitioner was not involved in any manner with the accusation as has been levelled by the complainant with respect to non -payment of his dues from July, 2005 to June, 2006.;