Nand Kishore Singhania and Surendra Kumar Singhania vs The State of Bihar and The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation

Sheema Ali Khan, J.—Petitioners have challenged the order dated dated 20.5.2003 by which charges were framed against the Petitioners. The prosecution report discloses that the allegations are that the Petitioners had not produced the ledger and cash book relating to their factory before the Insurance Inspector who visited their factory. On the said allegations, a case was instituted u/s 85(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.

The Petitioners had come to this Court earlier and challenged the order taking cognizance. This Court while considering the submissions, held that there was no element of mensrea, in committing the offence, as the Petitioners had replied to the show cause served upon them, showing their inability to produce their records as they were submitted at Patna for inspection. The explanation of the Petitioners that the records were not available seems to be admitted by the State and was considered a good ground for considering whether there was any intention to commit the offence alleged, by this Court. This Court, therefore, held that the Petitioners may place all these facts at the stage of framing of charges.

Despite notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the counsel for the opposite parties to counter the claim of the Petitioners. It appears that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a scheme was floated by the State Government which was valid for six months i.e. 1.2.2000 to 31.7.2000 wherein there was a provision that on deposit of a certain amount of money, criminal proceedings u/s 85 would be withdrawn.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners did not deposit the required amount of Rs. 845/- on 17.8.2000, because it was deposited beyond time the case could not be withdrawn. It is further submitted that the allegations relate to the period of the year 1990-91. The offence is minor inasmuch as it is not alleged that the Petitioners are guilty of paying a contributions available under this Act to its employees or the like, the only allegation is that they did not produce the ledger and the cash book when the inspecting team had visited their premises. It is also clear that on receipt of a show cause, they replied immediately and explained the circumstances under which the ledger book and cash book were not available, therefore, the Petitioners cannot be saddled with intention to deliberately withholding the documents for inspection.

In the circumstances, I find that there is no mensrea involved in the case. The order impugned dated 20.5.2003, passed in T.R. No. 783 of 1993 arising out of Complaint Case No. 980(M) of 1993 is quashed. This application is allowed.