Jharkhand High Court
Tapas Kumar Lahiri @ T.K.Lahiri & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 April, 2012
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.934 of 2011
1. Tapas Kumar Lahiri @ T.K. Lahiri
2. Prem Emanuel Kachhap ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. I. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : APP
-----
04/02.04.2012: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Opp. Party No.2 This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No.447 of 2010 including the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence has been taken and further for quashing of the order dated 03.06.2011 whereby and whereunder the court, after finding prima facie case being made out under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, has issued summon to the petitioners to face trial.
It does appear that the Opp. Party No.2 lodged a complainant bearing C.P. Case No.447 of 2010 stating therein that he was a permanent employee of BCCL, whose contribution was deducted for the financial years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 for its deposit in the CMPF Account but the accused persons did not deposit it and also their contributions in the CMPF Account. Further, it has been alleged that the amount payable towards LTC and also LLTC were not paid to him nor a sum of Rs. 1,07,075.04/- was paid, which was payable to him towards medical claim and, thereby it has been alleged that the accused persons did commit offence under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Upon filing of the said complaint, the court, took cognizance and then transferred to the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad, who on holding enquiry, did find prima facie case being made out under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and hence issued summon to the petitioners to face trial vide order dated 03.06.2011, which is under challenge.
Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1, presently holding a post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL and the petitioner No.2, Director (Personnel) BCCL, cannot be held responsible for non deposit of the contribution deducted from the account of the complainant, as they, at relevant point of time, had never been posted as C.M.D. and Director, Personnel and on account of this, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed.
It was further submitted that otherwise also, the petitioners cannot be held personally liable rather if responsibility is to be fixed, it is to be fixed upon the Company. The Officers of the Company including Chairman-cum- Managing Director and Director (Personnel) cannot be made liable in absence of any specific allegations that the petitioners were responsible or In-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company.
Since no such specific allegation is there, the order taking cognizance and also subsequent order, by which summon has been issued to the petitioners to face trial are fit to be quashed.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opp. Party No.2 wherein the statement made in the petition that during the year 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the petitioners had never been posted, have not been denied.
Under the situation, the petitioners, cannot be held liable for non- depositing of the contributions of the petitioners in the CMPF Account. Further more, the petitioners have never been alleged to be the responsible for deducting the amount of contributions of the employees and to deposit it in th account of the CMPF Account.
In this situation, it would be travesty of justice if the petitioners are allowed to face rigor of the trial, in view of the decision rendered in a case of M.A.A. Annamalai vs. State of Karnataka & another [(2010) 8 SCC 524] wherein in similar circumstances, it has been held that where basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are altogether absent, he should not be compelled to face criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No.447 of 2010 including the orders dated 12.03.2010 and 03.06.2011 is hereby quashed.
In the result, this application is allowed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/