Bangalore District Court
Enforcement Officer, Epfo, Sub ... vs Majjiga Vishnu Deepak on 21 March, 2025
KABC090001322024
Presented on : 17-02-2024
Registered on : 17-02-2024
Decided on : 21-03-2025
Duration : 1 years, 1 months, 4 days
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES: AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 21st day of March 2025
:Present:
Sri. VISHWANATH C GOWDAR., B.A.L., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer,
Special Court for Economic Offences,
Bengaluru City
C.C. No.82/2024
Complainant: The Enforcement Officer,
Employee's Provident Funds Organization,
Sub Regional Office, Bommasandra,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan,
Annapoorneshwari Complex, Sy.No.37/1,
6th Main, Singasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
Represented by: Sri. S. Manjunath,
Enforcement Officer,
(Reptd. By Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, Advocate)
Vs.
Accused : 1. M/s. MINDRIVERS SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
(Convicted)
No.2/10, Ground Floor, 1st Main,
N.S. Palya, Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
2 C.C. No.82/2024
2. Shri. DWARAKANATH N (Convicted)
Director,
#309, DS. Max, Sanskruthi,
K. Narayanapura Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 077.
3. Shri. MAJJIGA VISHNU DEEPAK
Director,
Block A Wing 1, Level 5 & 6,
Cyber Gateway,
Madhapur,
Hyderabad.
4. Shri. AEBURAJ E (Split Up)
Director,
29, 7th Main, MICO Layout,
Hongasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 068.
(A-3 Reptd. By Sri. Shashwath S Prakash, Advocate)
:JUDGMENT:
The instant complaint has been made by the complainant against the accused persons alleging to have committed the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act"). This case is a split up case registered against the accused Nos.3 & 4 arising out of C.C. No.271/2019 on the file of this court.
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 3 C.C. No.82/2024 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/1330438. It is further complainant's allegations that, the accused Nos.3 & 4 along with other 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.3 & 4, who are the Directors along with other Director are equally and statutorily bound to pay the employees and employers share of contributions along with administrative charges to the Provident Funds 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 & 39 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It is further complainant's case that, the accused Nos.3 & 4 have defaulted in remittance of aforesaid statutory contributions between May 2015 and July 2015 as below:
Month & Employees Employers Adm.
Due Date
Year share share Charges
May 2015 00 00 Rs.21 15.06.2015
Jun 2015 00 00 Rs.10 15.07.2015
Jul 2015 00 00 00 15.08.2015
Total 00 00 Rs.31
3. The accused Nos.3 & 4 as well as other Director despite several requests by the complainant having failed to comply in remittance of the aforesaid contributions. The 4 C.C. No.82/2024 Inquiry Authority has also after providing sufficient opportunities to the accused Nos.3 & 4 and other Director has passed order U/s.7A of the Act. The accused Nos.3 & 4 and other Director have failed to comply the said order and pursuant to default committed supra, are alleged to have committed the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the said Act. Hence, this complaint.
4. Upon receiving the instant split up complaint, this court acting U/s.200(a) of Cr.P.C., the sworn statement of the complainant was dispensed, pursuant to the complainant being the public servant, so also, cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the Act being taken in the original case, issued process.
5. The accused No.3 appeared before this court in the case on hand, after issuance of NBW and proclamation through his counsel and made a bail application. The same came to be allowed and was enlarged on bail. Despite issuance of summons, NBW and proclamation against the accused No.4, he could not be secured by this court. Hence, the case against the accused No.4 was split up vide order dated 24.10.2024.
6. After the evidence before charge as contemplated U/s.244 of Cr.P.C., being recorded. Having heard the counsels representing the complainant and accused No.3 the charge was framed, the accused No.3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.5 C.C. No.82/2024
7. The complainant in order to substantiate its claim and allegations put-forth in the complaint got examined its Enforcement Officer as PW-1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 and got closed its side of evidence.
Thereafter, the statement of accused No.3 as contemplated U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused No.3 denied incriminating materials and filed his written statement U/s.313(5) of the Cr.P.C. Further, the accused No.3 has not chosen to adduce his defence evidence.
8. Heard the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the complainant and the accused No.3. The counsel for complainant and accused No.3 have submitted memos along with authorities in support of their respective 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 Administrative Charges pertaining to the Provident Fund for the period between May 2015 and July 2015 within 15 days of the close of every month to the tune of Rs.31/- and thereby accused No.3, who was responsible for management of accused No.1 establishment has committed the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14A of the EPF and MP Act?
2. What order?6 C.C. No.82/2024
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 No.3 beyond all reasonable doubts has examined the complainant/Enforcement Officer arrayed as CW-1 as PW-1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 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 company duly managed by the Director i.e., accused No.3 and other Directors, defaulted in remittance of the Administrative Charges towards Provident Funds in the succeeding month within 15 th day pertaining to the period between May 2015 and July 2015 to the tune of Rs.31/-.
13. The complainant CW-1 has reiterated the allegations put-forth in the complaint in his oral testimony while being examined as PW-1. It has been also deposed regarding the default by the accused No.3 as well as other Directors being 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.
7 C.C. No.82/202414. In support of the said oral testimony, the complainant has produced and got marked in all 10 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10. Ex.P-1 is the complaint lodged in the case on hand by the complainant on the basis of the sanction accorded by Regional PF Commissioner-1, Bengaluru. Ex.P-2 is the sanction order dated 31.10.2019, wherein on the basis of the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer, the Regional PF Commissioner-1, R.O., Bengaluru (Koramangala), Bengaluru has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused persons for having committed the offence alleged in the complaint. Ex.P-3 is the certified true copy of Intimation dated 24.06.2015 intimating the coverage of accused No.1 establishment under the provisions of EPF Act. Ex.P-4 is the certified true copy of Return of Ownership in Form No.5A submitted to the Regional Commissioner of complainant Department by the accused No.1 establishment, wherein accused Nos.2 & 4 along with one Mr. Anil Kumar is shown to be the owner in column No.8 so also the said Mr. Anil Kumar is shown to be the person in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused No.1 establishment as per column No.11. Ex.P-5 is the certified true copy of show cause notice dated 15.07.2016 addressed to accused No.3. Ex.P-6 is the certified true copy of Track Report pertaining to Ex.P-5. Ex.P-7 is the certified true copy of the Assessment Order dated 09.08.2016 pertaining to accused No.1 establishment in an Inquiry conducted U/s.7A of the EPF and MP Act. One certified true copy of track report pertaining to service of Ex.P-7 is marked 8 C.C. No.82/2024 as Ex.P-8. The attested copy of Demand Notice dated 30.08.2019 addressed to accused No.3 is marked as Ex.P-9. The track report pertaining to service of Ex.P-9 is marked as Ex.P-10.
15. PW-1 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused No.3, wherein, it has been deposed as to the accused No.3 is the Director of accused No.1 establishment. The other suggestions as to no any notices or show cause notices have been served upon accused No.3 has been denied by the witness. It is admitted as to he is deposing in the case on hand on the basis of documents on record and has not submitted the list of existing Directors of accused No.1 establishment. The witness has not chosen to comment on sanction order at Ex.P-2 only referring the name of the accused No.3 as Director, without any other particulars. The other suggestions as to the PW-1 is deposing falsely to implicate the accused No.3, though he was not responsible for the day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment has been specifically denied by the witness.
16. The accused No.3 has not chosen to adduce his evidence.
17. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that, the complainant has very much discharged the burden of proving the guilt against the accused No.3 by cogent documentary 9 C.C. No.82/2024 and oral evidence. It has been also emphasized as to the evidence of PW-1 has withstood the test of cross-examination and Ex.P-7 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 No.3. It is also stressed regarding the default of accused No.3 having very much jeopardized the employees of the accused No.1 establishment. It is also highlighted as to the act of the accused No.3 being contrary to the very object of the statute and very much affecting the rights of the employees. It is emphasized that the payment of contributions by accused persons during the course of trial will not absolve from the criminal liability as the offence is complete soon after the default being committed, the accused No.3 by virtue of being the Director of accused No.1 establishment. It is also argued as to the court is empowered to invoke Section 14B of the Act to impose damages considering the facts and circumstances in the case on hand and also the mens-rea or actus-reus not being essential elements for imposing penalty or damages. In support of his arguments on the said proposition, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P No.5657/2017 c/w other Criminal Petitions in the case of M/s. Vasan Health Care Ltd., & another V/s. Enforcement Officer. Amongst these grounds, it has been sought to convict the accused No.3 for the offences alleged in the compliant.
18. The counsel for the accused No.3 has vehemently argued that, the aspect of the accused No.3 being only the 10 C.C. No.82/2024 Director and not being responsible for day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment. It is emphatically argued that, there is no any communication by complainant Department to accused No.3 neither with respect to the assessment order nor with respect to show cause notice. The counsel for accused No.3 highlighted that, pursuant to accused No.3 having cleared the proportionate arrears of contributions as per the assessment order at Ex.P-7 and also show cause notice at Ex.P-5, the instant proceedings will not survive for the consideration of this court. It is also pointed out that as per Section 14(1) of the Act, the mense rea/intention is a pre- requisite to incriminate the defaulter as the provision refers to the phrase "knowingly". It is also emphasized regarding proviso to Section 14A of the Act, which contemplates only on proof of the offence being committed with the knowledge and despite exercise of all due diligence, will be liable to the punishment. It is also highlighted that, there is no any averment in the complaint at Ex.P-1 regarding the accused No.3 being vicariously liable for the act of the accused No.1 establishment. It is claimed that there is no any specific mention regarding the role played by the accused No.3 neither in Ex.P-1 complaint nor it has been discussed in sanction as per Ex.P-2. It is claimed that the accused No.3 was not at all responsible for the conduct and day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment during the relevant period. Hence, sought to acquit the accused No.3 in the interest of justice.
11 C.C. No.82/202419. In support of his arguments, the accused No.3 has placed reliance upon the following decisions viz:
(1) (2024) 3 SCR 657 in the case of Susela Padmavathy Amma V/s. M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd., (2) (2023)8 SCC 473 in the case of Ashok Shewakramani & others V/s. State of AP (3) (2021)20 SCC 135 in the case of Dayle De'Souza V/s.
Government of India (4) (2020)3 SCC 240 in the case of Sushil Sethi & another V/s. State of Arunachala Pradesh (5) (2019)17 SCC 193 in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia V/s. State of NCT of Delhi (6) (2015)12 SCC 781 in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi (7) (2016)4 SCC 609 in the case of Sunil Mittal V/s. CBI (8) (2012)5 SCC 661 in the case of Aneeta Hada V/s. Godfather Travels (9) (2013)12 SCC 406 in the case of Sujit Biswas V/s. State of Assam (10) (2011)2 SCC 532 in the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi V/s. Ashutosh Agnihotri (11) Crl.O.P. NO.26587/2016 in the case of M/s. Marshall Sons and Company V/s. Guruswamy (12) 2005 LLJ Bom 2 817 in the case of S Sampath V/s. State of Maharashtra (13) 1978 CalHN 336 in the case of Mahalderam Tea Estate (P) Ltd., V/s. D.N. Prochan (14) AIR 1971 SC 28 in the case of Giridhar Lal Gupta V/s. D.N. Mehta and another 12 C.C. No.82/2024 (15) 2023 SCC Online Kar 467 in the case of Michil M Van Der Maat and another V/s. State of Karnataka Analysis and Evaluation of Evidence as well as Contentions
20. The complainant has very much established the fact of the accused No.1 establishment being very much covered under EPF and MP Act, 1952. This aspect is very much forthcoming from Ex.P-3.
21. The complainant has also substantiated regarding the default on the part of the accused No.1 establishment in so far as remittance of Administrative Charges towards Provident Fund between May 2015 and July 2015. This aspect is very much forthcoming from the examination of Inquiry Order passed by the competent Authority as per Ex.P-7. At this juncture, this court is also justified to draw an adverse inference on account of accused No.3 having not challenged the said Assessment Order as per Ex.P-7 as contemplated U/s.115 of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the show cause notice dated 15.07.2016 as per Ex.P-5 was duly served upon accused No.3 as per track reports marked as Ex.P-6, will certainly inclines the court to hold due service of Ex.P-5. Thereby the specific defence of accused No.3 as to he did not had "knowledge/intention" to commit an offence, pursuant to Ex.P-5 not being duly served upon him cannot be the tenable defence.
22. The arguments of the learned counsel for accused No.3 as to the sanction order as per Ex.P-2 does not discloses 13 C.C. No.82/2024 the role of the individual persons, who were responsible for the conduct of accused No.1 establishment and thereby there is no application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority will not be amenable on account of accused No.2 having not challenged the said sanction order before the competent Authority. Moreover, there is specific mention regarding the accused No.3 as to his status as Director of accused No.1 establishment thereby himself can be construed as Employer U/s.2(e) of the Act.
23. Further, the arguments as to there is no specific averment regarding the role of accused No.3 in the complaint as per Ex.P-1 so also no averment regarding accused No.3 being vicariously liable for the act of the accused No.1 establishment, will not hold the water pursuant to the averments in paragraph No.7 of the complaint. The reading of the paragraph No.7 of the complaint along with order as per Ex.P-7 i.e., assessment order very much makes clear the role of accused No.3 with respect to accused No.1 establishment.
24. The accused No.3 having not challenged the Ex.P-7 i.e., the Inquiry Order are very much precluded from contending as to the complaint is false and frivolous, as the accused persons have very much been represented 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 show cause notice as per Ex.P-5 and the Assessment Order 14 C.C. No.82/2024 as per Ex.P-7 are very much covered U/s.114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
25. It is the specific defence of the accused No.3 that, the complainant has not demonstrated regarding the accused No.3 being responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused No.1 establishment, by cogent oral and documentary evidence. In this regard, it has been further highlighted by the complainant regarding the accused No.3 being the Director is very much covered U/s.2(e) of the Act, which defines "Employer", he is statutorily responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused No.1 establishment. In the case on hand, the defence urged by the accused No.3 in so far as his responsibility in connection to accused No.1 establishment being not demonstrated or proved will not survive in light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (1993)3 SCC 217 in Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodiyar V/s. Enforcement Officer, Mysuru, wherein, it has been laid down that:
"when it comes to establishment other than factory it is not confined to owner or occupier but to all those who have control or are responsible for the affairs of the Company. It includes even Director. Therefore, every such person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of Company becomes employer. To say therefore that since paragraph 36-A requires an employer to do certain acts the responsibility for any violation of the provision should be confined to such employer or owner would be ignoring the purpose and 15 C.C. No.82/2024 objective of the Act and the extended meaning of employer in relation to establishments other than the factory. The declaration therefore in Form 5-A including appellant as one of the person in charge and responsible for affairs of the Company was in accordance with law. Therefore, his prosecution for violation of the Scheme does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or law"
26. Further, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for accused No.3 in Crl.O.P. No.26587/2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, reported in 2004 SCC Online Bom 875 in the case of S. Sampath Kumar V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1978 SCC Online Cal 55 in the case of Mahalderam Tea Estate (P) Ltd., & others V/s. D.N. Prodhan & another and AIR 1971 SC 28 in the case of Girdhari Lal Gupta & another V/s. D.N. Mehta, Asst. Commissioner of Customs & another have been anxiously examined by this court and the ratios laid down therein are duly applied and considered by this court.
27. An anxious examination of the Ex.P-5, it transpires that, accused No.3 is the Director of accused No.1 establishment. That apart, the demand notice at Ex.P-9 also discloses the accused No.3 being Director of accused No.1 establishment. The accused No.3 has not chosen to reply neither to Ex.P-5 nor to Ex.P-9. This inclines the court to hold accused No.3 being responsible in managing the day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment.
16 C.C. No.82/202428. In the case on hand, it has been categorically contended by the accused No.3 as to the arrears/dues pertaining to the Ex.P-5, Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-9 have been duly paid by accused No.3. The said claim of the accused No.3 is also forthcoming as per the letter dated 28.11.2024 as well as 06.12.2024 addressed to the Regional PF Commissioner, wherein, the accused No.3 has submitted Demand Draft towards the proportional arrears of contributions amounting to Rs.1,25,375/-. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that, the accused No.3 having cleared the proportional arrears of contributions during the pendency of the instant proceedings will not absolve from the violation as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. It is highlighted that soon after the default in remittance of the contributions by the accused No.3, the offence has been committed, the subsequent remittance cannot be the ground to acquit the accused No.3 in the case on hand. It is relevant to note that, the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon'ble High Courts have time and again made it clear that, mens-rea is not the pre-requisite, while considering and deciding in connection to the cases arising out of the EPF and MP Act, pursuant to the Act being one of Benevolent Legislation. Having regard to the scope and object of the Act, the contention of the accused No.3 as to having paid the arrears of contributions during the pendency of the case, in itself will not be a ground which will be eligible for the acquittal. The said defence certainly may be considered as an appropriate 17 C.C. No.82/2024 aspect to decide the quantum of penalty to be imposed. This view of the court is supported by the decisions reported in (1) 1999(1) LLJ 255 (AP) in case of Provident Fund Inspector V/s. Chitrala Co-op. Spinning Mills Ltd., (2) AIR 1959 Patna 9 in case of State of Bihar V/s. S.P. Bhadani (3) (1990) Crl. LR 267 (Cal) in case of Ramjhora Tea Company Ltd., V/s. Provident Fund Inspector
29. The arguments of the complainant as to the court is empowered to invoke Section 14B of the Act to impose the damages for belated remittance of EPF contributions by the accused No.3 in itself in absence of necessary averments in the complaint will not be the factor which will be amenable for the consideration of this court. Hence, the said arguments will not hold the water.
30. This court is of the considered view that the accused No.1 establishment being the juristic person is very much managed by the accused No.3, who is designated as the Director of the accused No.1 establishment, is responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused No.1 establishment and the said accused No.3 has failed to comply the provisions of the EPF & MP Act by contributing Administrative Charges towards Provident Fund as per paragraph Nos.30 & 38 of the Employees Provident Scheme pertaining to the period alleged in the complaint i.e. between May 2015 and July 2015 for the sum of Rs.31/-, by cogent, oral and documentary evidence. As such, this court holds that, the accused No.3 18 C.C. No.82/2024 the Director of the accused No.1 establishment as guilty of having committed the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) r/w Section 14(A) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
31. 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 No.3 beyond all reasonable doubts, the default on the part of the accused No.1 establishment being managed by the accused No.3, having not remitted the Administrative Charges towards Provident Fund for the period between May 2015 and July 2015 as per the provisions of the EPF & MP Act and Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. As such, this court proceeds to hold accused No.3 as guilty U/s.14(1A) & 14A of the Act with respect to the defaulted contribution amount. Accordingly, this court without any hesitation proceeds to answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
32. 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 No.3 is found to be guilty of the offences punishable U/s.14(1A) & 14A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.19 C.C. No.82/2024
For hearing on sentence.
(VISHWANATH C GOWDAR) Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.
HEARING ON SENTENCE Heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the quantum of sentence.
Heard the accused No.3 and the counsel for the accused No.3.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the accused No.3 has been found guilty of the alleged offences and the complainant has succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused No.3 beyond all reasonable doubts and the factors alleged by the accused No.3 that, the accused No.3 had no any intentions which is pre-requisite U/s.14A of the Act and he was not responsible for the commission of the offence and other aspects cannot be considered as the accused No.3 is 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. It is stressed as to the proportionate arrears of assessment order being fulfilled by the accused No.3 will not be the ground to 20 C.C. No.82/2024 take lenient view and sought for maximum punishment prescribed to the alleged offences.
The learned counsel for the accused No.3 emphasized that, the accused No.3 is noway responsible for the affairs of accused No.1 establishment and he is sole bread earner of his family and he has an obligation to look after his family so also his old aged parents and as the accused No.3 is not involved in the offence which are not punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment have sought for lenient view. It is also emphasized as to the dues pertaining to the case on hand has been cleared and same is evidenced as per the documents placed by accused No.3 on record. Amongst these arguments, it has been sought to take lenient view.
Considering the submissions of accused No.3, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused No.3 and the learned counsel for complainant this court, on an overall examination of the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that, the accused No.3 being the Director is responsible for the day to day affairs of accused No.1 establishment were also entrusted with the responsibility to look after the welfare of the employees of accused No.1 establishment. The accused No.3 has totally disregarded the belief of the employees of accused No.1 establishment, who being law abiding citizens have respected the statute to the core.
In view of the accused No.3 being held guilty of offences punishable under section 14A of the Act, so also the accused 21 C.C. No.82/2024 No.3 being the Director is responsible for accused No.1 establishment having committed offence punishable U/s.14(1A) of the Act is not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act as more fully discussed supra.
This court is of the considered view that, the accused No.3 is entitled to be given lenient view as he has cleared the proportionate dues/arrears i.e., 1/4th of the defaulted amount of Inquiry order during the course of the trail. It is just and proper to hold the said remittance of arrears of contribution is justifiable ground which empowers the court to invoke proviso to 14(1A) of the Act, wherein, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, the court is empowered to impose a lessor sentence. That apart, the accused No.3 having responsibilities to take care of his family so also, accused No.1 establishment having struck down from the registers of ROC, the claim of accused No.3 as to being in financial distress is justifiable ground to take the lenient view. This view is supported by the decisions relied upon by this court in paragraph No.28 of this judgment. As such, this court holds that, there are adequate and special reasons more particularly pursuant to the remittance of arrears during the course of trial, this is the case, which does not warrant the imposition of sentence of imprisonment to accused No.3.
Considering the submissions of the accused No.3, learned counsel for the accused No.3 and the learned counsel for the complainant, this court proceeds to pass the following :22 C.C. No.82/2024
ORDER Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 is 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.3 being the Director of accused No.1 establishment is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence committed under Section 14A r/w Section 14(1A) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further SI for a period of 1 month.
The complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1000/- out of the fine amount as contemplated under section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Office is hereby directed to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused No.3 in compliance of section 353(4) of Cr.P.C. forthwith.
The office is directed to place the entire records in split up C.C. No.239/2024.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me, in open court on this the 21st day of March 2025) (VISHWANATH C GOWDAR) Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru City.23 C.C. No.82/2024
ANNEXURE:
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
PW-1 : Sri. Manjunath List of the Documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint
Ex.P-2 : Sanction Order
Ex.P-3 : Certified true copy of Coverage
Intimation Letter
Ex.P-4 : Certified true copy of Return of Ownership
in Form 5A
Ex.P-5 : Certified true copy of Show Cause Notice
Ex.P-6 : Certified true copy of Track Report
pertaining to Ex.P-5
Ex.P-7 : Certified true copy of Assessment Order
U/s.7A of the Act
Ex.P-8 : Certified true copy of Track Report
pertaining to Ex.P-7
Ex.P-9 : Certified true copy of Notice of Demand
Ex.P-10 : Certified true copy of Track Report
pertaining to Ex.P-10
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 City.24 C.C. No.82/2024
21.03.2025 Complt.: Smt. BVV A-3: SSP For Judgment Counsel for the complainant present.
Accused No.3 present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.3 is 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.3 being the Director of accused No.1 establishment is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence committed under Section 14A r/w Section 14(1A) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further SI for a period of 1 month.
The complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1000/- out of the fine amount as contemplated under section 357 of Cr.P.C.
Office is hereby directed to furnish the free copy of this judgment to the accused No.3 in 25 C.C. No.82/2024 compliance of section 353(4) of Cr.P.C.
forthwith.
The office is directed to place the entire records in split up C.C. No.239/2024.
PRESIDING OFFICER.