Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Gujarat State and Another vs Vimal Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior counsel, states that in this matter, earlier he was appearing on behalf of the appellant. He has contended that now he is not on the panel of the appellant-Authority and therefore, he cannot appear in the matter. Therefore, this Court called Mr. B.T. Rao, learned counsel, who is on the panel of the appellant-Authority. All the papers pertaining to the matter have been provided to Mr. Rao and thereafter, he argued the matter.

The appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 08th December 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umbergaon, in Criminal Case No.2104 of 1986, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the opponent Nos.1 to 5-original accused from the charges levelled against them.

The short facts of the complainant is that the opponent No.1 is the firm managed by the opponent Nos.2 to 5. It is the case of the complainant that opponent Nos.1 to 5-original accused were covered within the meaning of Employees Provident Fund Act and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952. It is also the case of the complainant that the opponent Nos.1 to 5 were covered under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1971. As per the case of the complainant, according to Paragraph Nos.30 and 38 of the Scheme, original accused were bound to deposit the employees'' contribution along with the administrative charges and and employer''s contribution or or before 15th of the relevant month. It is the case of the complainant that original accused were not deposited the said amount. Therefore, a complaint to the said effect was registered with the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umbergaon for violation of provisions of Section 14(1)(a) and 14A of the Act read with Paragraph 76-D of the Scheme.

Heard Mr. B.T. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the opponent No.6-State.

Mr. Rao has contended that the appeal is of the year 1995 and after 16 years, this appeal has come on Board for hearing. He has read the report of Police Inspector, Umbergaon Police Station and contended that as per the said report, whereabouts of present opponent Nos.1 to 5 are not known. He has also contended that the opponent No.1 company is closed since long and it was in possession of Bank of Baroda and was sold by the Bank long back. It is also mentioned in the said report that there are chances that opponent Nos.1 to 5 are settled abroad. Mr. Rao has also read the statement of one Kunal Krushnakant Pandya, Umbergaon. As stated in statement, Mr.Pandya is at present owner of the said property. He has purchased the said property from Parth Agency, who purchased the same from the possession of Bank of Baroda in auction. Mr.Pandya is unaware about whereabouts of the opponent Nos.1 to 5. Hence, Mr. Rao has contended that looking to the facts of the case, this appeal may not survive and the Court may pass appropriate order.

Mr. Jani has contended that this is a very old appeal, which has now come on board for hearing. He has also contended that looking to the report produced on record, company is closed since long and it has been sold by the Bank. He has also contended that whereabouts of opponent Nos.1 to 5 are not known to anybody. Therefore, in view of these facts, Court may pass appropriate order.

I have perused the papers produced before me and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the Rojkam. Looking to the papers, it appears that the matter was pending for one year at the stage of evidence before the trial Court. It also appears that neither the complainant nor the counsel for the complainant have ever bothered to remain present before the trial Court. It also appears from the papers that though complainant had never filed any application for adjournments, on several occasions, adjournments were given in the interest of justice. It appears that thereafter as the complainant was never remained present to produce evidence, at last, in the interest of justice, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the opponent Nos.1 to 5 from the charges levelled against them.

In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the opponent Nos.1 to 5-original accused of the charges levelled against them.

I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. The Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 22nd December 1992 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umbergaon, in Criminal Case No.2104 of 1986, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.