Aggrieved by the dismissal of complaints filed by the Enforcement Officer alleging offence against the accused punishable under Section 14(IA) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, “the Act”), the complainant has come up in appeal in both these matters. In both these cases, the complainant and the accused are the same. The complaints are in respect of two different offences allegedly committed on two different dates by the accused.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that dismissal of the complaints under Sec.256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) is legally not justifiable. Foremost contention raised by the appellant is that the court below committed an error in treating the case as a summons case, when the statute prescribes a punishment for three years for the offence alleged. Therefore, going by the provisions in the Cr.P.C., it can be seen that the learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the case and tried it as a warrant case as prescribed punishment exceeds Crl.Appeal Nos.1211 & 1129/2004 2 two years. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the matter was posted for hearing on this issue, the court below dismissed the complaints under Sec.256(1) Cr.P.C. on a day when the appearance of the complainant was not at all necessary. That apart, the cryptic orders passed by the court below do not show any valid reason for throwing out the complaints. Hence I find that the impugned orders are legally unsustainable. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the business concern was closed subsequent to the case. That is a matter to be considered by the trial court at the time of trial. I do not make any observation regarding the merits of the case. Dismissal of the complaints in both the cases are legally unsustainable.
In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The complainant and the accused shall appear before the court below on 24.11.2014.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks