Bangalore District Court
Smt. Shyja.K The Enforcement Officer vs Bangalore Blues Entertainment India ... on 15 December, 2025
KABC090012982025
Presented on : 26-09-2025
Registered on : 26-09-2025
Decided on : 15-12-2025
Duration : 0 years, 2 months, 19 days
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES: AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 15th day of December 2025
:Present:
Sri. VISHWANATH C GOWDAR., B.A.L., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer,
Special Court for Economic Offences,
Bengaluru
C.C. No.927/2025
Complainant: Enforcement Officer,
Employee's Provident Funds Organization,
Regional Office, Koramanagala,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan,
Annapoorneshwari Complex,
Survey No.37/1, 6th Main,
Singasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
Represented by: Smt. Shyja K,
Enforcement Officer.
V/s.
Accused : 1. M/s. Bangalore Blues Entertainment
India Pvt. Ltd.,
No.105, 1st A Cross,
5th Block, Koramangala Indl. Layout,
Jyoti Nivas College Road,
Bengaluru - 560 095.
2 C.C. No.927/2025
2. Shri. Srikanta Upadhyay,
Managing Director,
#601, Delphi-3, Prestige Acropolis,
N.20, Hosur Road, Next to Forum Mall,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
3. Smt. Vandana Upadhyay
Director,
#601, Delphi-3, Prestige Acropolis,
N.20, Hosur Road, Next to Forum Mall,
Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(Reptd. By Sri. MKV., Advocate)
:JUDGMENT:
The instant case emanates from the complaint filed by the complainant alleging that, the accused persons have committed the offence punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. The complainant's case in nutshell is as under:
The accused No.1 company is an establishment within the meaning of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952, the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. The said statutes are very much applicable to the accused No.1 establishment, the same has been allotted with Code No.PY/BOM/1073674. It is further complainant's allegation that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 being Managing Director and 3 C.C. No.927/2025 Director are the persons, in-charge of day to day affairs and conduct of the accused No.1 establishment as per Form No.5A submitted by the said establishment. Thereby, the said accused Nos.2 & 3, who are the Managing Director and Director are equally and statutorily bound to pay the Employees' and Employer's Contributions to the Provident Fund together with Administrative Charges for every month within 15 days of close of that month in respect of the employees working in the accused No.1 establishment, as per paragraph Nos.30 & 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It is further complainant's case that, the accused persons have defaulted in remittance of aforesaid statutory contributions between June 2021 and August 2021 as below:
Month & Employees' Employer's Administrative Due Date Year Share Share charges.
Jun 2021 00 00 Rs.500 15.07.2021
Jul 2021 00 00 Rs.500 15.08.2021
Aug 2021 00 00 Rs.500 15.09.2021
Total 00 00 Rs.1500
3. The accused persons despite several requests by the complainant having failed to comply in remittance of the aforesaid contributions. The Inquiry Authority has also after providing sufficient opportunities to the accused has passed order U/s.7A of the Act. The accused have failed to comply the said order and pursuant to default committed supra, are 4 C.C. No.927/2025 alleged to have committed the offence punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the said Act. Hence, this complaint.
4. Upon receiving the instant complaint, this court acting U/s.223(1)(a) of BNSS, the sworn statement of the complainant was dispensed, pursuant to the complainant being the public servant, took cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Act and issued process.
5. The accused Nos.2 & 3 appeared before this court on service of summons through their counsel and made a bail application. The same came to be allowed and were enlarged on bail.
6. After the evidence before charge as contemplated U/s.243 of BNSS, being recorded. Having heard the complainant and the counsel for accused persons, the charge was framed, the accused Nos.2 & 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The complainant in order to substantiate her claim and allegations put-forth in the complaint got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked nine documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 and got closed its side of evidence. Thereafter, the statement of accused Nos.2 & 3 as contemplated U/s.351 of BNSS was recorded. The accused Nos.2 & 3 denied incriminating materials and have not chosen to adduce their evidence in support of their contentions.5 C.C. No.927/2025
8. Heard the arguments canvassed by the complainant and the counsel for the accused persons. The complainant and accused persons have submitted memos along with documents in support of their respective oral arguments.
9. Having due regard to the complaint, evidence on record and arguments canvassed by the either parties, the following points would arise for the consideration of this court namely:
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubts as to the accused No.1 being the establishment failed to pay the employees' and employers contributions to the Provident Fund along with Administrative Charges for the period between June 2021 and August 2021 within 15 days of the close of every month to the tune of Rs.1,500/- and thereby accused No.1 establishment being managed by accused Nos.2 &
3 have committed the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the EPF and MP Act?
2. What order?
10. The answer of this court to the aforesaid points is as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. Point No.1: The complainant in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts got examined herself arrayed as CW-1 as PW-1 and got marked 6 C.C. No.927/2025 nine documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 and got closed its side of evidence.
12. It is the complainant's allegations as to the accused No.1 company/establishment duly covered under EPF and MP Act, 1952, the said accused No.1 establishment duly managed by the Managing Director and Director i.e., accused Nos.2 & 3 respectively, the employees' and employers share of contributions towards Provident Fund along with Administrative Charges was defaulted to be remitted in the succeeding month within 15th day pertaining to the period between June 2021 and August 2021 to the tune of Rs.1,500/-.
13. The complainant CW-1 has reiterated the allegations put-forth in the complaint in her oral testimony while being examined as PW-1. It has been also deposed regarding the default by the accused Nos.2 & 3 being the Managing Director and Director, responsible for day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment, the Inquiry being conducted after the inspection so also regarding the order of sanction being obtained from the competent Authority.
14. In support of the said oral testimony, the complainant has produced and got marked in all nine documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. Ex.P-1 is the complaint lodged by the complainant, the signature of the complainant is marked as Ex.P-1(a). Ex.P-2 is the original sanction order dated 04.08.2025, wherein on the basis of the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer, the Regional PF 7 C.C. No.927/2025 Commissioner-1, RO, Bengaluru has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused persons for having committed the offence alleged in the complaint. Ex.P-3 is the attested copy of Form No.5A i.e., Return of Ownership submitted to the sanctioning Authority by the accused No.1 establishment, wherein accused Nos.2 & 3 are shown to be the Managing Director and Director and accused No.3 is shown to be in- charge and responsible person for the conduct of business of the accused No.1 establishment. Ex.P-4 is the attested copy of Assessment Order dated 30.05.2024 pertaining to accused in an inquiry conducted U/s.7A of the EPF and MP Act. Three attested copies of track consignment reports pertaining to Ex.P-4 showing delivery of Ex.P-4 are collectively marked as Ex.P-5. The attested copy of show cause notice addressed to accused Nos.1 to 3 dated 09.07.2025 issued by Regional PF Commissioner-II, Bengaluru calling upon to show cause within 7 days from the receipt of the said notice as to why the penal action should not be initiated, pursuant to default to comply the order at Ex.P-4 is marked as Ex.P-6. Three attested copies of track consignment reports pertaining to due delivery of Ex.P-6 to accused persons are collectively marked as Ex.P-7. Ex.P-8 is the printout of the e-mail dated 10.07.2025 addressed to accused Nos.1 to 3 with an attachment pertaining to show cause notice at Ex.P-6. The Certificate U/s.63 of BSA pertaining to the Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-7 is marked as Ex.P-9.
15. PW-1 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons, wherein, she 8 C.C. No.927/2025 has categorically deposed as to the assessment proceedings being conducted after ascertaining the accused No.1 establishment being in operational. The suggestion as to the accused No.1 establishment having stopped its operations since March 2020 to till date has been denied by the witness. It is elicited as to the witness having not visited the premises of accused No.1 establishment so also no any documents pertaining to he said visit to the premises of accused No.1 establishment being part of Ex.P-4 i.e., Assessment Order. The suggestions as to the accused No.1 establishment was not functional between March 2020 and June 2020 on account of pandemic situation has been specifically denied by the witness. It is categorically deposed as to the 36 post dated cheques issued by accused No.2 towards the contributions by way of installments by availing the facility to repay the arrears of EPF contributions was not duly utilized by accused No.2, wherein, the second post dated cheque issued by accused No.2 was dishonoured, whereby, the facility by way of scheme extended to accused No.1 establishment was seized. The other suggestions as to there was no any due service of notices, show cause notices and assessment order upon the accused persons has been denied by the witness. The further suggestions as to the instant complaint has been lodged to harass the accused Nos.1 to 3 in order to falsely implicate them has been denied by the witness.
16. The accused Nos.2 to 3 have not chosen to adduce their evidence in support of their contentions.
9 C.C. No.927/202517. During the course of arguments, the complainant vehemently argued that, the complainant has very much discharged the burden of proving the guilt against the accused Nos.2 & 3 by cogent documentary and oral evidence. It has been also emphasized as to her evidence as PW-1 has withstood the test of cross-examination and the Ex.P-4 i.e., the order in the Inquiry proceedings U/s.7A of the EPF and MP Act till date has not been challenged by the accused persons. It is also stressed regarding the default of accused persons having very much jeopardized the employees of the accused No.1 establishment. It is also highlighted as to the act of the accused persons being contrary to the very object of the statute and very much affecting the rights of the employees. Amongst these grounds, it has been sought to convict the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence alleged in the compliant.
18. The counsel for the accused persons has vehemently argued that, the accused No.1 establishment is not at all in operation since March 2020 and there is no question of arrears of contribution to the employees. It is also profusely argued as to the notices, show cause notices as well as Ex.P-4 was not duly communicated to the accused persons, whereby, the principles of natural justice has not been complied. The Assessment Order at Ex.P-4 is also highlighted to the contrary as the accused No.1 establishment is facing liquidation proceedings, so also based upon wrong calculations. It is also emphasized as to the complainant Agency having accepted 36 post dated cheques and after 10 C.C. No.927/2025 realization of one such cheque towards the contribution, having approached this court immediately on dishonor of second cheque is opposed to the very principles of equity. The complaint at Ex.P-1 is argued to be untenable in the eyes of law. Amongst these arguments, learned counsel for the accused persons sought to acquit the accused Nos.1 to 3 to meet the ends of justice.
"Evaluation & Analysis of Evidence as well as Rival Contentions"
19. The complainant has very much established the fact of the accused No.1 company/establishment being very much covered under the EPF and MP Act, 1952. This aspect is very much forthcoming from Ex.P-3.
20. The complainant has also substantiated regarding the default on the part of the accused No.1 establishment in so far as remittance of employees' and employers share of contribution towards Provident Fund along with Administrative Charges between June 2021 and August 2021. This aspect is very much forthcoming from the examination of Inquiry Order passed by the competent authority as per the Ex.P-4. At this juncture, this court is also justified to draw an adverse inference on account of accused Nos.1 to 3 having not challenged the Assessment Order as per Ex.P-4 as contemplated U/s.105 of the Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
21. The specific defence urged by the accused persons as to the accused No.1 establishment was not operational since March 2020 more particularly during the course of 11 C.C. No.927/2025 Inquiry Proceedings and no any communication in connection to the Inquiry Proceedings was made to the accused Nos.2 & 3 will not hold any water, as the accused No.2 himself appeared in the Inquiry Proceedings on 19.10.2023 and representative of accused No.1 establishment Mr. A.K. Basha appeared in Inquiry Proceedings on 19.07.2023, the said contention of accused No.1 establishment not being in operational was not at all put-forth before the Inquiry Authority. The accused Nos.2 & 3 are precluded from taking the defence of not having knowledge regarding inquiry proceedings, as the accused No.2 himself and his representative had appeared in the said proceedings and having not challenged the Ex.P-4 justifies the court to draw an adverse inference against the accused Nos.1 to 3.
22. Furthermore, the accused Nos.2 & 3 being treated as an employers of accused No.1 establishment and being responsible for the day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment in Ex.P-4 very much inclines the court to hold the accused Nos.2 & 3 being responsible for the day to day affairs and management of the accused No.1 establishment.
23. The accused persons having not challenged the Ex.P-4 i.e., the Inquiry Order is very much precluded from contending as to the complaint is false and frivolous, despite appearing in the said proceedings, during the inquiry initiated by the complainant Authority U/s.7A of the EPF & MP Act. This court is of the considered view that, the attested copy of Form No.5A as per Ex.P-3 and the Assessment Order as per 12 C.C. No.927/2025 Ex.P-4 are very much covered U/s.114 of the Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
24. The arguments of the counsel for the accused as to Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-7 being postal track reports cannot be considered in order to hold the due service of the notices and assessment order, will not hold the water, as the complainant has submitted the Certificate U/s.65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 in the case of Anwar P.V. V/s. P.K. Basheer and (2020) 7 SCC 1 (SC) in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar V/s. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others.
25. It is the specific case of the complainant that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 being the Managing Director and Director of the accused No.1 establishment are certainly bound by the day to day affairs of the accused No.1 establishment.
26. An anxious examination of the Ex.P-3, it transpires that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 are shown to be Managing Director and Director of accused No.1 establishment so also accused No.3, who is shown as in-charge and responsible for the conduct of business of accused No.1 establishment is sufficient to gather themselves being responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused No.1 establishment. This inclines the court to infer the accused Nos.2 & 3 were actively participating in the management of accused No.1 establishment.
13 C.C. No.927/202527. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused No.2 as to the complainant Agency having prosecuted the accused persons soon after dishonor of second postdated cheque, which was handed over to the complainant Agency towards the fulfillment of arrears of assessment order, in itself will not be a justifiable arguments as the accused No.1 establishment is bound to pay and fulfill the assessment order, which is pertaining to the block period March 2020 to May 2023. The arguments as to complainant Agency having acted contrary to principles of equity is very much untenable.
28. The further arguments of the counsel for accused persons as to accused No.1 establishment is debt ridden and facing financial crunches, by placing reliance upon the documents placed before this court along with memo dated 15.11.2025, will not be the justifiable ground before this court, as the obligation casted upon the accused Nos.2 & 3 by virtue being employers of accused No.1 establishment is a statutory obligation under the provisions of EPF & MP Act as well as Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The accused Nos.2 & 3 are Estopped from contending the said aspect as to accused No.1 establishment being not operational.
29. This court is of the considered view that the accused No.1 establishment being the juristic person is very much managed by the accused Nos.2 & 3, who are designated as the Managing Director and Director of the accused No.1 establishment and are solely responsible for the day to day 14 C.C. No.927/2025 affairs of the accused No.1 establishment in absence of the contrary being established by the complainant and the said accused Nos.2 & 3 have failed to comply the provisions of the EPF & MP Act by contributing employees' and employers share of contributions towards Provident Fund along with Administrative Charges as per paragraph Nos.30 & 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 pertaining to the period alleged in the complaint i.e. between June 2021 and August 2021 for the sum of Rs.1,500/-, by cogent, oral and documentary evidence. As such, this court holds that, the accused No.1 establishment and accused Nos.2 & 3 the Managing Director and Director of the accused No.1 establishment as guilty of having committed the offence punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Act.
"CONCLUSION"
30. In the light of the discussion made supra, this court is of the considered view that, the complainant has discharged the burden of demonstrating the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts, the default on the part of the accused No.1 establishment being managed by the accused Nos.2 & 3, having not remitted the employees' and employers share of contributions towards Provident Fund along with Administrative Charges for the period between June 2021 and August 2021 as per the provisions of the EPF & MP Act and Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. As such, this court proceeds to hold accused Nos.2 & 3 as guilty U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Act in so far as entire defaulted contribution amount. Accordingly, this court 15 C.C. No.927/2025 without any hesitation proceeds to answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
31. Point No.2: In the light of the discussion and findings, assigned supra while appreciating the Point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 3 are found to be guilty of the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Call at 04-45 pm., for hearing on sentence.
(VISHWANATH C GOWDAR) Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.16 C.C. No.927/2025
HEARING ON SENTENCE Heard the the complainant on the quantum of sentence.
Heard the accused Nos.2 & 3 and the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3.
The complainant submitted that, the accused persons have been found guilty of the alleged offences and the complainant has succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and the factors alleged by the counsel for accused Nos.2 & 3 that, the accused No.1 was not at all in existence during the subject period and other aspects cannot be considered as the accused persons are involved in committing an offence which is affecting socio economic rights of employees of accused No.1 establishment who have contributed their hard earned wages having regard to the object and intent of the statute and sought for maximum punishment prescribed to the alleged offences.
The learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 emphasized that, the accused No.3 noway responsible for the affairs of accused No.1 establishment and the accused Nos.2 & 3 are sole bread earners of their families and they have an obligation to look after their families so also their old aged parents and as the accused Nos.2 & 3 are not involved in the offence which is punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment have sought for lenient view.17 C.C. No.927/2025
Considering the submissions of accused Nos.2 & 3, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant this court, on over all examination of the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 being the Managing Director and Director are responsible for the day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment was also entrusted with the responsibility to look after the welfare of the employees of accused No.1 establishment. The accused Nos.2 & 3 have totally disregarded the belief of the employees of accused No.1 establishment, who being law abiding citizens have respected the statute to the core. This court is of the considered view that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 cannot be given lenient approach as the allegation against the accused Nos.2 & 3 have been proved by the complainant beyond all reasonable doubts. In view of the accused Nos.2 & 3 being held guilty of offences punishable under section 14A of the Act, so also the accused Nos.2 & 3 being Managing Director and Director are responsible for accused No.1 establishment having committed offence punishable U/s.14(1A) of the Act are not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act as more fully discussed supra.
Considering the submission of the accused Nos.2 & 3, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant, this court proceeds to pass the following :18 C.C. No.927/2025
ORDER Acting under section 271(2) of BNSS the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted of the offence punishable under sections 14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
The accused No.1 being establishment i.e., juristic person is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for being guilty U/s.14(1A) of the Act.
Further, the accused Nos.2 & 3 being the Managing Director and Director of accused No.1 establishment are sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence committed under Section 14A r/w Section 14(1A) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused Nos.2 & 3 shall undergo further SI for a period of 1 month.
Pursuant to accused No.1 establishment being managed by accused Nos.2 & 3, they shall jointly pay the fine of Rs.5,000/- on behalf of accused No.1 establishment. In default of payment of fine on behalf of accused No.1 establishment, the accused Nos.2 & 3 shall undergo further SI for a period of 1 month.
Furthermore, while acting U/s.14C(1) of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous 19 C.C. No.927/2025 Provisions Act, 1952, the accused Nos.2 & 3 are hereby directed to pay the employees' and employers contributions as well as administrative charges towards Provident Fund pertaining to the period between June 2021 and August 2021 i.e., Rs.1,500/- within three months to the complainant Authority from the date of this order.
The complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1000/- out of the fine amount as contemplated under section 395 of BNSS.
The aforesaid sentence shall run concurrently.
Office is hereby directed to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused Nos.2 & 3 in compliance of section 392(4) of BNSS forthwith.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 15th day of December 2025) (VISHWANATH C GOWDAR) Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.20 C.C. No.927/2025
ANNEXURE:
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW-1 : Smt. Shyja List of the Documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint
Ex.P-2 : Original Sanction Order
Ex.P-3 : Attested copy of Return of Ownership
Ex.P-4 : Attested copy of Assessment Order
Ex.P-5 : Attested copies of Track Consignment reports
Ex.P-6 : Attested copy of Show Cause Notice
Ex.P-7 : Attested copies of Track Consignment reports
Ex.P-8 : Attested copy of e-mail
Ex.P-9 : Certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Accused:
- Nil -
List of Documents examined on behalf of the Accused:
- Nil -
Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.21 C.C. No.927/2025
15.12.2025 Complt.:
A-1 to 3: MKV For Judgment Complainant present.
Accused No.1 company.
Accused Nos.2 & 3 present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under section 271(2) of BNSS the accused Nos.1 to 3 are convicted of the offence punishable under sections 14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
The accused No.1 being establishment i.e., juristic person is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for being guilty U/s.14(1A) of the Act.
Further, the accused Nos.2 & 3 being the Managing Director and Director of accused No.1 establishment are sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence committed under Section 14A r/w Section 14(1A) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused Nos.2 & 3 shall undergo further SI for a period of 1 month.22 C.C. No.927/2025
Pursuant to accused No.1 establishment being managed by accused Nos.2 & 3, they shall jointly pay the fine of Rs.5,000/- on behalf of accused No.1 establishment. In default of payment of fine on behalf of accused No.1 establishment, the accused Nos.2 & 3 shall undergo further SI for a period of 1 month.
Furthermore, while acting U/s.14C(1) of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the accused Nos.2 & 3 are hereby directed to pay the employees' and employers contributions as well as administrative charges towards Provident Fund pertaining to the period between June 2021 and August 2021 i.e., Rs.1,500/- within three months to the complainant Authority from the date of this order.
The complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1000/- out of the fine amount as contemplated under section 395 of BNSS.
The aforesaid sentence shall run
concurrently.
23 C.C. No.927/2025
Office is hereby directed to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused Nos.2 & 3 in compliance of section 392(4) of BNSS forthwith.
PRESIDING OFFICER.24 C.C. No.927/2025
The learned counsel for the accused Nos.2 & 3 has filed the common application under section 430(3) of BNSS seeking to enlarge the accused Nos.2 & 3 on bail till the expiry of appeal period. It is further submitted that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 are intending to file appeal and as they have been convicted. Hence, has sought for enlarging them on bail.
The complainant has orally objected to the said application and submitted that, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled to the said relief as the accused Nos.2 and 3 are involved in the socio-economic offence and has also submitted as to the chances of accused Nos.2 & 3 absconding from the jurisdiction of this court and failure to comply the order of this court to appear in order to undergo the punishment as per the Judgment, as such sought for dismissal of application.
Considering the fact that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 have been granted bail during the course of trial and in view of the sentence being imposed is not exceeding three years and so also the offence being bailable in nature, having due consideration as to the 25 C.C. No.927/2025 accused Nos.2 & 3 intending to challenge the Judgment by preferring an appeal, it is just and appropriate to grant the bail to the accused Nos.2 & 3 till the expiry of the appeal period only. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby allowed and the accused Nos.2 & 3 have been granted bail till the expiry of appeal period.
The bail application is allowed subject to condition that, the accused Nos.2 & 3 shall execute the personal bond for Rs.10,000/-.
Office is hereby directed to take personal bond of the accused Nos.2 & 3.
The accused Nos.2 & 3 shall be present before the court to undergo the sentence on 29.12.2025.
Call on: 29.12.2025.
Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.