Delhi District Court
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs M/S Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd on 23 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 (SOUTH EAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010062752024
CRL. REVISION No. 332/2024
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE
F-2/3 OKHLA PHASE-1
NEW DELHI -110020
....Revisionist
VERSUS
1. M/S REDSHOW ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES
ACT, 1956
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
11-C&D, 3rd FLOOR
MAIN ROAD, CHIRAG DELHI
NEW DELHI-110017.
LOVLEEN
Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 1 of 19
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date:
2025.07.23
15:09:44 +0530
2. SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S REDSHOW ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
C-3504, SECOND FLOOR,
GREEN FIELD COLONY, NHPC COLONY
FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121010
3. SHRI VIRENDER RAI
DIRECTOR
M/S REDSHOW ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
A-1/92, POCKET-I
ROHINI, SECTOR-16
WEST DELHI-110085.
4. SHRI HASMUKH JETHWA
DIRECTOR
M/S REDSHOW ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
179A, EXTENSION PASCHIM VIHAAR
NEW DELHI-110063.
5. SHRI SHAILENDER KUMAR SINGH
MANAGER ACCOUNTS
M/S REDSHOW ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
11-C&D, 3rd FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, CHIRAG DELHI
NEW DELHI-110017
6. SHRI RAHUL KUMAR JHA
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
M/S REDSHOW ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD
11-C&D, 3rd FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, CHIRAG DELHI
NEW DELHI-110017
.....Respondents
LOVLEEN
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date:
2025.07.23
15:09:48
+0530 Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 2 of 19
Date of institution : 02.07.2024
Date of Reserving judgment : 16.04.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a criminal revision petition u/s 397 Cr.PC filed against order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, SED in Criminal Complaint No. 28/2022 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. The said complaint was filed by the revisionist against the respondents herein alleging commission of offences punishable u/s 85 (g) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2023, the Ld. Magistrate dismissed the said complaint for want of jurisdiction while granting liberty to the revisionist to file a fresh complaint.
GROUNDS OF REVISION
2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-
A). A. Because, the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in passing the Impugned Order dated 18.09.2023 without taking into consideration the fact that the Ld. CMM Court has full jurisdiction to enquire into the Complaint filed by the Complainant.
B). Because, the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Ld. CMM LOVLEEN Court has jurisdiction to try this Complaint case as per the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 3 of 19 Date: 2025.07.23 15:09:51 +0530 Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically stated that:
"Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."
C). Because, in the present case, the Petitioner's Sub- Regional office was in Okhla which comes well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the contribution paid by the Respondent (Accused in the Complaint) or documents had to be deposited or produced within the Petitioner's Organization. Therefore, according to Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the act of contribution or documents produced by the Accused in the Sub-Regional Office of Petitioner which situated at Okhla comes well within the Jurisdiction of this Court.
D). Because, The Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court has jurisdiction to try this Complaint case as per Section 179 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reproduced herein below:
When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such a thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
E). Because, the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate LOVLEEN Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 4 of 19 Date: 2025.07.23 15:09:55 +0530 Sub-Regional Office of the Complainant which is situated at Okhla comes well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court has the Jurisdiction to inquire into or conduct trail of the Complainant Case as per Section
179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As the offence of non-production of documents committed by the Accused under Section 85(g) of the ESIC Act, 1948 and consequences of the offence has been ensued in Complainant's Sub Regional Office.
F). Because, the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the fact that large number of Complaints against employers are filed by the Corporation. Such employers are spread throughout the State. All the material records are maintained at Delhi Sub Regional Office, situated at Okhla, where the employer is registered and the mandatory returns under the Act must be filed. Therefore, in view of Section 39 read with regulations 26 and 29 which deals with procedure for paying the contributions, the Ld. CMM has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Complaint laid under Section 85(g) of the ESIC Act, 1948.
G). Because, the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take into consideration Section 44 of the ESIC Act. According to Section 44 of the Act, every Principal or Immediate Employer has to submit to the Corporation or to such Officer of the Corporation, as it may direct such returns in such form and containing such particulars as may be specified in the regulation. Sub-Section (2) states that when the return has not been so submitted, the Corporation should require any person in charge of the factory or establishment to furnish the same. Further Regulation 26(2) provides for the due date by which evidence of contribution having been paid, must reach the Corporation. Therefore, LOVLEEN the returns/contributions have to be submitted to the Sub-
Digitally signed by LOVLEENCrl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 5 of 19 Date: 2025.07.23 15:09:58 +0530 Regional Office at Okhla. Failure to do so would entitle the regional office to invoke the relevant provisions for penal action.
H). Because, the Ld. CMM has failed to take into consideration the Judgment of H. the Kerala High Court in P. Renuka vs Employees State Insurance Corporation. The relevant paras of the Judgment are produced herein below:
2. One of the main contentions taken in all these cases is as regards the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, to take cognizance of the complaints. In Crl M.C. 1185/1991 the petitioner has prayed for transfer of C.C.No. 92 of 1991 and ST. 271 of 1991 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichur to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, on the ground that S.T No. 322 of 1990 is pending there for non-payment of contribution for the period 1.10.1988 to 31.3.1989. The petitioners in Crl. M.C. 1222 of 1991 have put forward certain grounds to show that the prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. They have also stated that they are not liable to be prosecuted under Section 86-A of the E.S.I. Act. The petitioner in Crl. M.C. 1093 of 1991 has contended that the amount due by way of contribution from him had not been determined and therefore, the question of his failure to pay the same did not arise. He has alleged that the prosecution is also bad for want of sanction from the Insurance Commissioner.
4. Under Section 43 of the Act "the Corporation may make regulations for any matter relating to or incidental to the payment and collection of LOVLEEN Digitally signed Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 6 of 19 by LOVLEEN Date:
2025.07.23 15:10:02 +0530 contributions payable under the Act." Clauses (a) to (d) of that section say that such regulations may provide for the manner and time of payment of contributions and similar other related matters. Under Section 44 of the Act, every principal and immediate employer shall submit to the Corporation or to such officer of the Corporation returns in such form and must also maintain registers as required by the regulations.
5. Under Regulation No. 26, "every employer shall send a return of contributions in quadruplicate in Form 6 along with receipted copies of challans for the amounts deposited m the Bank, to the appropriate office by registered post or by messenger, in respect of all employees for whom contributions were payable in a contribution period." Under Regulation 29, contributions payable under the Act, shall, except when otherwise provided, be paid into a Bank duly authorized by the Corporation. Under Section 40 "the principal employer shall pay in respect of every employee, whether directly employed by him or by or through an immediate employer, both the employer's contribution and the employee's contribution" and he should remit the same to the Corporation at his expense.
6. It is not in dispute that the Bank duly authorised under Regulation No. 29 is the State Bank of India, Trichur. No doubt, it had extended the facility to the principal employers who have their factory/establishment in various other places in Kerala, for making payment of their contributions at the local branches of the State Bank of India. Such banks are only the collecting LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 7 of 19 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:10:06 +0530 agent of the Corporation. Indeed, the Corporation does not maintain account in any branch of the Bank outside Trichur. The payments made at the local branches of the Bank are credited to Account No. 1 of the Corporation with the S.B.I. Trichur The receipt/payment is complete only when it has been made in Form 6.
The appropriate office for submission of that Form is the Regional Office at Trichur, as per the order dated 4.2.1965 issued under Regulation 2(c) where the "appropriate office", appropriate Regional Office", "appropriate local office" shall mean with reference to any action taken under the Regulations such office of the Corporation as may be specified for that purpose under a general or special order of the Corporation." By Notification No. 12/13/1/83-P. &D., the appropriate office for the purpose of submission of return of contributions under Regulation No. 26, as far as Kerala, Mahe and the Union Territory of Pondicherry, is concerned is the Regional Office of the E.S.I. Corporation at Trichur. It is that office and that office alone that has jurisdiction in regard to matters coming within the purview of the Act.
7. No doubt, the Corporation has its offices at places outside Trichur. But, that is for administrative reasons and to help the local employers. But the Regional Office at Trichur is the only office of the Corporation where the required returns under the Act must reach. The payment of contributions is effective only when the employer makes the payment in the prescribed Form VI and it has been recorded and credited to the account of the Corporation with LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 8 of 19 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:10:19 +0530 the S.B.I. Trichur. As stated already, the appropriate office for submission of Form VI is the Regional Office at Trichur. In view of Section 39 read with regulations 26 and 29 which deals with the procedure for paying the contributions, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur, has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaints laid under Section 85 of the Act.
8. Under Section 44 of the Act every principal or immediate employer has to submit to the Corporation or to such officer of the Corporation, as it may direct, such returns in such form and containing such particulars as may be specified in the regulation. Sub-section (2) states that when the return has not been so submitted, the Corporation should require any person in charge of the factory or establishment to furnish the same. The contribution cards have to be sent in respect of each employee to the Corporation by registered post or through messenger, in the prescribed form. Regulation 26(2) provides for the due date by which evidence of contribution having been paid, must reach the Corporation. There is no doubt that returns have to be submitted to the Regional Office at Trichur. Failure to do so would entitle the Regional Office to invoke the relevant provisions for penal action.
9. Even assuming that Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichur, has no exclusive territorial jurisdiction in the sense that the impugned acts were committed in different local areas, the complaints could still be enquired into by it under Section 178 Cr.P.C. The respondent is LOVLEEN Digitally signed Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 9 of 19 by LOVLEEN Date:
2025.07.23 15:10:22 +0530 not required to invoke the penal provisions in accordance with the convenience of the parties proceeded against.
10. A large number of complaints may have to be filed by the Corporation against employers who have violated the provisions of the Act. Such employers are spread throughout the State. All the material records are being kept at the Regional Office at Trichur, The Corporation would certainly find it difficult to prosecute the cases at different places. From the point of view of the effective implementation of the Act, the Court at Trichur is the proper place for trial of the cases under the Act. That would also obviate conflicting decisions and ensure a fair amount of uniformity in the decision with respect to disputed questions of law.
11. It seems proper to refer to the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Ismail Sahib AIR 960 Mad. 64. Complaints were filed by the Corporation before the Chief Presidency Magistrate Court, Madras. Objection was raised that the court had no territorial jurisdiction since the factories involved in the case, were situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poonamelle. But the objection was overruled. The Full Bench noticed that under Section 39 of the Act:
"The contribution payable under this Act in LOVLEEN respect of an employee shall....be paid to the Corporation." and under Section 44 returns have Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:10:25 +0530 Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 10 of 19 also to be submitted to it. It was observed that even though the Corporation had issued a circular which enabled payments to be made in mo-fussil centres, that did not relieve the factories and establishments from the obligation under the common law rule that the debtor must seek the creditor.
H). Because, the Ld. CMM has failed to take into consideration the Bombay High Court Judgment of Sohanlal Awasthi vs Employees State Insurance Corporation. The Relevant paras of the Judgment are produced herein below:
"3. All these six revision petitioners were prosecuted either under section 85-A for non- payment of contribution and or under section 85(g) for non-submission of cards at Nagpur by the Corporation. The revisional applicants contended before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Nagpur that it is the Court at Nanded where payment of contribution was to be made which could exercise jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, by a common order dated 14-3-1986, which has been impugned in these revision applications negatived their contention and held that it is the Court at Nagpur which has jurisdiction over the matter. It is against this common order that the present revision applications have been directed.
4. Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the jurisdiction of the Criminal courts in enquiries and trials. Under section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. LOVLEEN Digitally signed Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 11 of 19 by LOVLEEN Date:
2025.07.23 15:10:28 +0530 The question involved in all the six revisions, therefore, is whether an offence of non-payment of contributions and non-submission of contribution cards under the Act arises within the local limits and jurisdiction of Nagpur Court where admittedly the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, has it's regional office and where account No. 1 under the Act has been opened by the Corporation in the State Bank of India, Nagpur.
In the instant case also the office of the Employees State Insurance Corporation is situate at Nagpur. Except for the fact that the revision applicants are residents of Nanded, there is not much of a difference in the facts of the above case and the cases in hand. Here also the fund is being operated at Nagpur where contributions have to be finally credited in account No. 1 of the Corporation in the State Bank of India at Nagpur. Besides, in the instant cases, as has already been observed the contributions are inextricably linked with the submission of the contribution cards. The proviso to Regulation 31-A shows that the payment would not be complete unless the contribution cards reach the office of the Corporation at Nagpur either by registered post or through a messenger. The payment of contributions therefore, of necessity has to follow suit and to be made at Nagpur.
16. The learned Counsel Shri Madkholkar also referred me to the Regional Director ESI v. S.C. Mallik, 1979 Vol. 48 C.L.T. 224. The case deals with payment of contribution under Regulation 31 and the method of computation. The LOVLEEN Digitally signed Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 12 of 19 by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:10:36 +0530 Magistrate has made a mistake in observing 'wage period' and therefore, it was held that the respondents committed an offence under section 85(a) of the Act. This case has no bearing at all on the question involved in this case which is about the local jurisdiction of the Nagpur Court vis-a-vis the Court at Nanded under sections 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the offence of non-payment arises at Nanded also, the Nagpur Court would also have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the offence under section 85-A for non-payment of contribution and under section 85(g) for non- compliance with any of the requirements of the Employees State Insurance Act, for the simple reason that the common law asks the debtor to seek the creditor, and also because the implied and express provisions of the Act clothe the Nagpur Court with jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the offences under sections 85-A for non-payment of contribution and under section 85(g) for non-compliance with any of the requirements of the Employees State Insurance Act. 1948.
18. The offences have, therefore, been committed within the local jurisdiction of Nagpur Court. The cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, of the aforesaid offences does not, therefore, call for any interference in this revisional jurisdiction. The question involved is thus answered accordingly and all the six revisions are, therefore, hereby dismissed."
LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 13 of 19 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:10:44 +0530 I). Because the Ld. CMM has failed to take into consideration the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Haji Md. Ismail Sahid and Others. The Relevant paras of the Judgment are produced herein below:
"1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras, filed six charge-sheets against Sri Haji Mohammad Ismail Sahib, in regard to two tanneries Sri V.S. Raghavan, in regard to Revathi Studios, Sri M.H.M. Munas, in regard to Royal Studios, Sri Noor Kazi, in regard to Amco Studios and Sri K.S. Praksh Rao and Sri K. Venkatarama Ayyar, in regard to Prakash Studios, under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The complaints were taken on file by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, and numbered as C.C. Nos. 2396, 2397, 3545, 3546, 3547 and 3548 of 1958
14. Bearing this principle in mind let us examine the facts of this case. Section 39 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, lays down:
The contribution payable under this Act in respect of an employee shall...be paid to the Corporation.
That payment to the Corporation has to be made at the office in Desikachari Road, Mylapore, Madras-4. Similarly, the returns to be submitted under Section 44 of the said Act have to be submitted to the Corporation or to such officer of the Corporation as it may direct. The registers will naturally be maintained by the various factories and establishments in their offices LOVLEEN where they are located. In this connection it is Digitally signed Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 14 of 19 by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:10:55 +0530 contended that by a circular the Corporation has enabled payment to be made in mofussil centres. But this does not relieve the factories and establishments from the obligation under the Common Law rule that the debtor must seek the creditor. In Draxal v. Draxal L.R. (1916) 1 Ch. 251, it was held that where a payment was bound to be made in England, on the principle of debtor seeking the creditor, the fact that for purposes of convenience the payments were being made in America, would not relieve the debtor from the Common Law obligation and the consequences arising from default thereof.
15. Therefore, we hold first of all, that the Chief Presidency Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and the fact that different parts of the offence were committed in a different jurisdiction would make no difference.
Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be enquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas; see Section 182, Criminal Procedure Code."
J). Because, the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the common law principle that asks the debtor to seek the creditor, and also because the implied and express provisions of the Act clothe Saket Court, South East District, Delhi with jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the offences under Section 85(a) for non-payment of contribution and under Section 85(g) for non-compliance with any of the requirements of the ESIC Act, 1948.
3. A prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 15 of 19 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:11:00 +0530 18.09.2023. Ld counsel for revisionist has relied upon following judgments:-
i). P RENUKA VS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, 1192, II L.L. 292.
ii). EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS M. JAJI MD. ISMAIL SAHIB AIR 1936 RANG. 251.
iii). N. VAJRAPURI NAIDU VS NEW THEATRES CARNATIC TALKIES LTD LPA NO. 75 OF 1958.
iv). SOHANLAL AWASTI AND ANOTHER VS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, NAGPUR, 1987 Mh. L.J. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
4. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the Ld counsel for the respondents, who argues that there is no merit either in the condonation application or in the main petition. Ld counsel for respondents has relied upon following judgments:-
i). RAJ KUMAR GUPTA VS STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, (2010) 127 FLR 40
ii). BIMAL KUMAR GODDHYAN @ BIMAL GODDHYAN, UDAY KUMAR GODDHYAN AND BINDO KUMAR GADDHYAM, ALL SONS OF TELU RAM AGARWAL, DIRECTOR FATKA REFRACTORIES PVT. LTD VS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND INSURANCE INSPECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, (2010) 124 FLR 402.
DISCUSSION LOVLEEN 5. This Court has gone through the records and has considered the Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 16 of 19 Date: 2025.07.23 15:11:03 +0530 above submissions as well.
6. As per TCR, on 05.01.2022 a complaint was filed by the revisionist u/s 200 CrPC against the respondents herein alleging commission of an offence punishable u/s 85 (g) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. On 08.03.2022, Ld. Magistrate considered the records of the complaint and heard the revisionist on the point of limitation as well. At that time, Ld. Magistrate found the said complaint to be within the prescribed period of limitation. Cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 85 (g) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 was also taken by the Ld. Magistrate and the respondents herein were ordered to be summoned. Upon the appearance of respondents herein, all were admitted to bail as well. Thereafter, on 18.09.2023, the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the said complaint while observing as under:-
" Perusal of the file shows that the case does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of South East District. This Court does not have jurisdiction to try the cases beyond the territorial jurisdiction of South East District.
In these circumstances, the case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction with liberty to the complainant to file fresh in accordance with law.
Bail bonds & surety bonds of accused stands cancelled. Surety discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to its rightful owner. Endorsement, if any be cancelled.
LOVLEEN Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 17 of 19 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2025.07.23 15:11:09 +0530 File be consigned to Record Room."
7. At the very outset, this Court must observe here that the offence punishable u/s 85 (g) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 prescribes a maximum imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 01 year or with fine which may extend to Rs. 4000/- or with both. The above fact clarifies that the cases pertaining to 85 (g) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 are 'Summons - case'. The said fact, in turn obliges a Magistrate, who orders the summoning of an offender(s) accused of said offence, to deal with the case under Chapter XX of CrPC. That being so, the Ld. Magistrate concerned, after taking cognizance of the said offence in the present case and ordering the summoning of the respondents herein u/s 204 CrPC, was required by law to state the substance of accusation to the respondents herein u/s 251 CrPC. The procedural law does not permit a Magistrate dealing with a 'Summons-case' to deviate from the procedure prescribed under Chapter XX. As such, Ld. Magistrate, while passing the impugned order dated 18.09.2023, fell in error when she deviated away from the procedure prescribed under Chapter XX of CrPC. For the said reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. That apart, the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 amounts to a recall of order dated 08.03.2022 whereby the respondents herein were Digitally ordered to be summoned. For the said reason also, the impugned order signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.07.23 Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 18 of 19 15:11:33 +0530 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, the impugned order does not reflect as to how the Ld. Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the case does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of South East District. There is no discussion on this aspect, which renders it difficult for this Court to understand what was going on in the mind of Ld. Magistrate when she chose to pass the impugned order dated 18.09.2023. For the said reason as well, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Ordered accordingly. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this judgment with the directions that the Ld. Magistrate shall proceed further in the said complaint from the stage when the impugned order came to be passed.
10. With these observations the present petition stands disposed of.
Digitally
11. The Revision file be consigned to record room. signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2025.07.23 15:11:38 +0530 Dictated and Announced in open Court on 23.07.2025. (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl. Revision No: 332/2024 ESIC vs M/s Redshow Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. page no. 19 of 19