AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. B. Garg, J.
Gurpal Singh a partner of M/s Shree Aarkishan Steels. G. T. Road, Khanna has challenged his prosecution under Section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code launched by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Mandi Gobindgarh. Camp Khanna, District Ludhiana and the framing of
charges by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna on 1791993.
Briefly, the petitioner has alleged that he is a partner of a firm at Khanna, District Ludhiana and their books of accounts were inspected by the
Insurance Inspector of Mandi Gobindgarh under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for the period 10/89 to 12/89 and the amount which
was outstanding was Rs. 3755/ that thereafter the petitioner firm consulted their legal advisor and deposited Rs 1252/, Rs. 1232/ and Rs. 1271/
(total Rs. 3755/) for the period in question on 231990; that a show cause notice was received by the firm on 5/631990 as to why a complaint
under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code be not filed against the petitioner, that the petitioner, firm sent a reply on 1331990 giving details of the
deposits made by them in the State Bank of Patiala, Mandi Gobindgarh but still the complaint in question has been instituted and a charge bag also
been framed against the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna on 1791992 as
mentioned above.
The record shows that the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 5/631990. annexure P2, as to why the sum of Rs. 1167.15 was not
deposited and in case no reply was received within 15 days from the date of the notice action shall be taken under Section 406 read with Section
409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner firm had deposited a sum of Rs. 1252/ in the State Bank of Patiala on 231990 as their contribution
under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, annexure P1 and intimated the Corporation on 1331990 (annexure P3).
When the department itself had given a period of 15 days for depositing the amount of the employees contribution, it was not fair to launch
prosecution. The petitioner is also not a public servant and the framing of a charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P6)
against the partner of the petitioner firm was illegal.
The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/s Dhanda Engineers Private Limited, 1981
PLR 354 and has argued that while discussing question No. 5 the Court was of the view that the delay or a default in payment of contribution
would attract to provisions of Section 85B of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. In the case in hand, the circumstances are distinguishable
in as much as the trial Court framed a charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances of the case, the complaint as well
as the charge are quashed.
JUDGMENT accordingly.