High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 12 P&H CK 0018

M/s Secodiya Security Services and another vs State of U.T. Chandigarh and another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 12 December 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
3624-2017(O&M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 339 words
1.

Heard.

2.

This order will dispose of CRR Nos.3624, 3626, 3628, 3630,

3631, 3632, 3635, 3636, 3641, 3642, 3644, 3646 and 3647 of 2017. For

facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CRR No.3624-2017.

3.

Notice of motion in all the revisions were issued only on the

point of quantum of sentence.

4.

On the last date of hearing, it was pleaded by learned counsel

for the petitioners that he has paid the entire amount.

5.

Today, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has filed a

certificate showing that for the period 2007-2010, a sum of Rs.3,25,733/-

including cost and charges is still recoverable from the petitioner. He has

also pointed out that it is observed in the judgment of the trial Court and

appellate Court that a sum of Rs.4,23,327/- is still outstanding against the

present petitioner.

6.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has opposed the prayer for

reduction in sentence on the ground that under Section 14(1)(a) of the

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,

minimum sentence is provided for one year, which may extend to three

years. However, the Court, for special and adequate reasons, to be recorded

in the judgment, impose the sentence of lesser term.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that during trial

and before the appellate Court he has paid Rs.2,58,000/- out of his

outstanding liability.

8.

Considering that the petitioner has paid some part of his

liability and there is fine of Rs.10,000/- in each of the complaints, therefore,

on account of the making part payment during the pendency of the trial and

appeal, substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year is

reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months in each of the complaint,

for the above noted special reasons. Sentence of fine is maintained.

Sentences shall run concurrently as directed by the lower appellate Court.

9.

With the above noted modification in the sentence, all the

present revision petitions are dismissed.

10.

A copy of the order be placed on the connected case files.