Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sri Babulal Nahata & Ors vs State & Anr.) on 18 December, 2017
1 9 18.12.2017 CRR 2885 of 2009 an Court No. 34 (Sri Babulal Nahata & Ors. vs. State & anr.) Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. P. Tewary Mr. Biswajit Manna ............. for the petitioner Mr. Abhra Mukherjee Mrs. Debjani Sahoo .............. for the State Mr. Mihir Kundu .............. for the P. F. Authority The petitioner challenges the legality and the validity of the impugned proceedings being G.R. Case No. 6058/08 in connection with Nagrakata P.S. Case No. 202/08 dated 24.09.2008 under Sections 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the petitioner, the said proceedings are liable to be quashed because he was not in any way connected with the day to day affairs of the business. He submits that he was one of the Directors of the said Company but he was not supposed to see the Management of the affairs of the Company exclusively.
He further stated that the said dues were supposed to be paid by the Company and the said Company has already deposited the same although after the proceedings were initiated. The petitioner further submits that since he is not the Principal Employer, he was not supposed to pay the money from his own pocket.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to impress the court regarding "Employer" and "Principal Employer" by showing relevant provisions and citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 1998 C Cr. LR (Supreme Court) 396 [Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. S. K. Aggarwal & Ors.]; 2000 CrLJ 781 (Patna) [B. P. Gopta & Ors. vs. 2 State of Bihar]; 2003 C Cr. LR (Cal) 341 [R. L. Kanoria & Ors. vs. State & anr.] and (2012) 2 C Cr LR (Cal) 615 [Prabhash Kumar Basu vs. The State of West Bengal] respectively.
When the Coordinate Benches of this High Court has concurrently come to a finding that the person concerned cannot be asked to pay the dues, if any, but it is the Company who is to deposit the same, I can't take a different view.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the entire dues have been paid although just after the lodging of the F.I.R.
Therefore, at this stage, nothing survives. Since there is no iota of evidence that the present petitioner was controlling the affairs of the entire business, prosecution should be quashed in respect of him.
Hence, the CRR stands allowed.
Accordingly, the proceedings being G.R. Case No. 6058/08 in connection with Nagrakata P.S. Case No. 202/08 dated 24.09.2008 under Sections 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code stand quashed.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)