AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petition coming on for admission, is taken up for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s. Lakshmi Cements and Ceramic Industries Limited having its registered office at Patna. It carries on business in raising and mining manganese ore. The Company had a cement plant located at Ittigehalli village, Mathod Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk. The then Directors of the Company opted to sell the said plant. Respondent No. 2 had issued a show cause notice dated 4.8.2010 demanding arrears and to show cause as to why an arrest warrant should not be executed against the petitioner. The petitioner had, by his reply dated 12.08.2010, informed Respondent No. 2 that he had been appointed as a Director of the said company only with effect from 7.8.2009 and the matter of default had taken place prior to the appointment of the petitioner as Director, namely during the period April 2000, to June 2000 during which time the petitioner had no role to play in the said company and consequently, could not be considered as an officer in-charge or responsible for the default as alleged. In spite of this, the respondent had preferred a complaint naming the petitioner as Accused No. 7 therein in Case no. C.C. 76/2011 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Hosadurga, Chitradurga, alleging offences under Paragraph 76(d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with Section 14(1A) and 14(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the EPF Act'' for brevity) alleging that the petitioner was in charge of the said company and was responsible for the conduct of the business. It is this limited aspect on which the present petition is filed seeking that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.
The learned counsel would reiterate that the Magistrate while taking cognizance, has failed to take note of the fact that at the time of the commission of the above offences, the petitioner above named was neither a Director of the Company nor was in charge of the affairs of the company and there was no role played by the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has filed the supporting documents which may not be seriously disputed, as they are maintained in the usual course of business and are a matter of record. Therefore, having regard to the factual position and the tenor of Sections 14(A) and 14(1A) of the EPF Act, the petitioner could not have been named as one of the accused in the above circumstances. Consequently, the proceedings, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, pending in C.C. No. 76/2011 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Hosadurga, Chitradurga District are hereby quashed.