Patna High Court
Raj Kumar Subhsehwar Singh And Ors. vs V.N.P. Verma And Ors. on 19 July, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1984(32)BLJR523
JUDGMENT M.P. Varma, J.
1. The three petitioners aforementioned are being prosecuted for infringement of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and by order dated 10.5.77 they have been summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take their trial in the court of Judicial Magistrate, first class at Madhubani. The petitioners have moved the Court for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against them.
2. Short facts leading to the prosecution are as follows; M/s. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. have three working units known as (1) M/s Lohat Sugar Works, (2) Sakri Sugar Works, and (3) Pandaul Cane Farm, the produce of which is used as raw material by M/s Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. The petitioners were the Directors of the aforesaid M/s Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd. The allegation is that the aforesaid Directors, in spite of several requests made to them, failed to pay inspection charges for the period March, April and May, ]976, which is an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The complaint was filed by the Inspector employed under the Act. The complaint was filed on 10.5.77 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as stated above, on a consideration of the materials as stated in the petition of complaint, took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioners to stand their trial.
3. It is stated at the Bar that the aforesaid company i.e., M/s. Darbhanga Sugar Co. Ltd., with all the units vested in the Government of Bihar on 24.1.76 and that one Shri I.D. Jha took over charge as the Managing Director of the company. The charge report has been annexed to the application as Annexure 2. It has been stated that it is the employer of the company who may be liable for his acts of omission and Commission under Section 14 of the Act. In the Act the term "occupier" of the factory has been defined to mean the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory and the said affairs are entrusted to the Managing Agent who shall be deemed to be the occupier of the factory. A similar definition of the term "occupier" appears under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act. In this context it has been argued that Sbri I.D. Jha was put as in-charge having ultimate control over the affairs of the company, which was done in pursuance of the Government decision communicated to the company itself as per Annexure 1 to the application.
4. In the circumstances referred to above when Shri I.D. Jha had taken over as the Managing Director, he was undoubtedly in-charge of the entire management and control of the company. Counsel for the State has not disputed this position. In the situation there appears to be no room for doubt that during the relevant period Shri I.D Jha was having ultimate control over the affairs of the company and was consequently responsible for its business. In such circumstances the prosecution of the petitioners on the ground that they were in-charge of the said company and were responsible for the conduct of its business, appears to be misconceived and they cannot be held responsible for non-payment of the inspection charges for the period of March, April, and May, 1976, when the affairs of the company were under the control of the Managing Director Shri I.D. Jha. In the circumstances as now appearing, it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow the criminal proceeding to continue for the aforesaid charges.
5. In the result, the application succeeds and the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners vide order dated 10.5.77, is hereby quashed.