IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5657/2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.5658/2017, 5659/2017, 5660/2017, 5661/2017, 5662/2017, 5663/2017, 5664/2017, 5665/2017, 5666/2017, 5667/2017, 5668/2017, 5669/2017, 5670/2017, 5671/2017, 5672/2017, 5673/2017, 5674/2017, 5675/2017, 5676/2017 AND 5677/2017 IN CRL.P. NO.5657/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.281/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) AND 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30,38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952 AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
IN CRL.P. NO.5658/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.282/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) AND 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30,38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952 AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
IN CRL.P. NO.5659/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.283/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BENGALURU UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) & 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30, 38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952.
IN CRL.P. NO.5660/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.284/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BENGALURU UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) AND 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30, 38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952 AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
IN CRL.P. NO.5661/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ... PETITIONERS ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.285/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) AND 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30, 38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952 AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
IN CRL.P. NO.5662/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.286/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) AND 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30, 38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952 AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
IN CRL.P. NO.5663/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.287/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) AND 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30, 38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952 AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
IN CRL.P. NO.5664/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.288/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 14(1A) AND 14A WITH 6 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 30, 38 AND 76(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME 1952 AND ALLOW THE PETITION.
IN CRL.P. NO.5665/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ... PETITIONERS ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.289/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 14(1A) AND 14(2) AND SEC. 6A OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT R/W PRAGRAPH 3 AND 42(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEMES 1995.
IN CRL.P. NO.5666/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.290/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976 IN ORDER TO SCURE.
IN CRL.P. NO.5667/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.291/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976 IN ORDER TO SCURE.
IN CRL.P. NO.5668/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.292/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976 IN ORDER TO SCURE.
IN CRL.P. NO.5669/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.293/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976 IN ORDER TO SCURE.
IN CRL.P. NO.5670/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.294/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976 IN ORDER TO SCURE.
IN CRL.P. NO.5671/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.295/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976 IN ORDER TO SCURE.
IN CRL.P. NO.5672/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.296/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976 IN ORDER TO SCURE.
IN CRL.P. NO.5673/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ... PETITIONERS ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.297/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BANGALORE, AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1A) AND 14(2) R/W 6A OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 3 AND 42(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME, 1995.
IN CRL.P. NO.5674/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
(BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.298/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BANGALORE, AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1A) AND 14(2) R/W 6A OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 3, 42(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME, 1995.
IN CRL.P. NO.5675/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.
NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.299/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BANGALORE, AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1A) AND 14(2) R/W 6A OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 3, 42(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME 1995.
IN CRL.P. NO.5676/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
... PETITIONERS THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.300/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BANGALORE, AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1A) AND 14(2) R/W 6A OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 3, 42(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME 1995.
IN CRL.P. NO.5677/2017: BETWEEN:
1. M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.897/C, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.383, ANNA SALIA, SAIDAPET CHENNAI – 600 015.
2. MR. A.M. ARUN CHAIRMAN M/S VASAN HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. NO.1/A, ANNAMALAI NAGAR ROAD TRICHY, TAMIL NADU – 651 123.
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS SUB REGIONAL OFFICE BOMMASANDRA BHAVISHY ANIDHIBHAVAN ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX NO.37/1, 6TH MAIN, SINGSANDRA BANGALORE – 560 068.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.301/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SPL. COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BANGALORE, AS THE RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS INITIATED A FRIVOLOUS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 14(1B) AND 14(2) R/W 6C OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT 1952 R/W PARAGRAPH 8, 29(d) OF THE EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE SCHEME, 1976.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In all these petitions criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners by the respondent herein by filing complaint alleging that petitioners have committed offences punishable under Section 76(d) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme’ for short) r/w Section 14(1A) and 14A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) for contravention of Section 6 of the Act r/w Paragraphs 30 and 38 of the Scheme are sought for being quashed.
2. The gist of complaint is: accused are the persons incharge of the establishment and responsible for conduct of its business and were required to pay “employees” and “employers” contributions to the provident fund together with administrative charges for every month within 15 days of the close of that month in respect of employees of the establishment as required under Paragraphs 30 and 38 of the Scheme. It is further alleged that on account of non payment of the said amount, accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 76(d) of the Scheme r/w Section 14(1A) and 14-A of the Act for contravention of Section 6 of the Act r/w paragraphs 30 and 38. Hence, these petitions are filed for quashing of said proceedings.
3. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prashanth and Sri. Subramanya for petitioners and Smt. B.V.Vidyulatha, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
4. It is the contention of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that second accused is not an employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and it was one Sri.CH K S Prasad, who is the Senior vice President- Human Resource, who was incharge and having ultimate control of first petitioner-establishment and as such, there is no negligence on the part of second petitioner to make him liable under the Act. He would elaborate his submission by contending that an establishment covered under the Act is required to nominate a person having ultimate control over the affairs of establishment and Form No.5-A is required to be filed in that regard and same had been filed as per Annexure-C and it is the said person, who can be proceeded with for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Scheme and as such, prays for proceedings initiated against second petitioner being quashed.
4.1 He would also contend that there is no intention or negligence to cause delay in remittance of the contributions and financial crunch coupled with the garnishee order issued by the Income Tax Department attaching 104 bank accounts which created unfavourable financial situation resulting in establishment not being able to perform its business activities and as such, there was no payment and no mens rea can be attributed to the petitioners for not remitting the amounts within time. He would also submit that all the amounts due and payable under the Act and Scheme has been remitted to the department and as such, continuation of prosecution would not sub-serve any purpose. Hence, he prays for allowing the petitions. In support of his submission he relies upon the judgment in the case of JASODA GLASS AND SILICATE AND ORS vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. disposed of on 10.10.2001 by the High Court of Calcutta.
5. Per contra, Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned panel counsel appearing for respondent contends that first petitioner is an establishment and as such, it is required to deduct and remit the statutory dues in respect of all eligible employees as per the Act and petitioner-establishment has defaulted in remittance of both employer’s and employees’ contribution for the period June’ 2014 to June’ 2015 and as such, proceedings under Section 7A Act came to be initiated and after hearing the petitioners, an order came to be passed quantifying the amounts due from the petitioners. She further contends that on account of default in payment of statutory remittances for all the due period, orders have been passed under Section 7A of the Act and on account of remittances of amounts bank accounts and also that of sundry debtors came to be attached and amounts came to be collected.
5.1 She would further contend that ownership details had been furnished by the petitioners as per Annexure-R-1 on 19.03.2015 and subsequent declaration furnished on 21.07.2015 by declaring the ownership returns whereunder Sri. CH K S Prasad has been shown as owner of the establishment, has been rejected by communication dated 27.05.2016 and inspite of communication dated 27.05.2016 is issued, no response was received from the first petitioner- establishment and as such, on the basis of records available with the respondent prosecution has been rightly initiated against both the petitioners.
5.2 She would hasten to add that all the amounts due to the department has been recovered and as such, there are no amounts payable for the period in question. However, she would submit that non remittance of the amounts within the period prescribed under the Act is a continuing offence, remittance of amounts subsequently would not absolve the petitioners of its liability and as such, she prays for dismissal of the petitions and in support of her submission, she has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) LAWS(APH) 2002 1 46: ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR (ii) (1984) 4 SCC 222: BHAGIRATH KANORIA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF M.P.
(iii) (2001) 1 SCC 631: RAJNEESH AGGARWAL vs. AMIT J. BHALLA (iv) (2008) 5 SCC 662: S.K.ALAGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS (v) (2009) 10 SCC 48: K.K.AHUJA vs. V.K.VORA AND ANOTHER 6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution initiated against second petitioner for alleged violation of Section 6 of the Act r/w Paragraphs 30 and 38 of the Scheme, is to be proceeded with or same is liable to be quashed?
OR Whether second petitioner or CH K S Prasad Rao is the employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act?
(ii) Whether remittance of amounts due and payable pursuant to orders passed under Section 7A and 14B would absolve the liability of an establishment and continuation of the proceedings is not called on the ground that offence has stood wiped out?
RE. POINT NO.1:
7. Section 14A defines ‘Offences by companies’.
It reads as under:
“14A. Offences by companies.— (1) If the person committing an offence under this Act [,the Scheme or [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance Scheme]] is a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under the Act [, the Scheme of [the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance Scheme]] has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director or manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
Section 2(e) defines employer means:
“2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the control otherwise requires,--
(a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx (e) “employer” means--
(i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the gent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent;”
8. Section 6 of the Act mandates employer’s and employees’ contribution is to be remitted to the fund. Under Section 14(1A) such employer who contravenes, or makes default in complying with, the provisions of Section 6 or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 in so far as it relates to payment of inspection charges, or paragraph 38 of the Scheme in so far as it relates to payment of administrative charges, would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one (1) year/three (3) years, but which shall not be less than one year and a fine of ten thousand rupees in case of default in payment of employees’ contribution, which has been deducted by the employer from the employees’ wages and imprisonment of six months and fine of five thousand rupees, in any other case. However, such Court would be empowered for adequate and special reasons being recorded in the judgment to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term.
9. Paragraph 36A of the Scheme mandates that every employer in relation to a factory or establishment to which the Act applies to furnish in duplicate to the Regional Commissioner in Form No.5A declaring thereunder particulars of all branches and departments, owners, occupiers, directors, partners, manager, or any other person, or persons who have ultimate control over the affairs of such factory, or establishment and also send the intimation of any change in such particulars, within fifteen days of such change, to the Regional Commissioner by registered post and in such other manner as may be prescribed by Regional Commissioner.
10. In the background of above statutory provisions, when the facts on hand are examined it would emerge from the records that where the offence is committed by a company, every person who at the time of offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, would be deemed to be guilty of the offence and would liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Thus, deemed vicarious liability to be fastened would not be extendable to all the directors or officers of the company. In the absence of statute itself prescribing a director of a company or an employee of the company to be guilty, it cannot be held that such directors or officers would be vicariously liable for any offence committed by the company itself. If director or a manager or secretary was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of business of the company, it would be sufficient to cast criminal liability and law makers would have said so by incorporating the relevant provision in the Section itself. In interpreting a penal statute strict interpretation is required to be made and there would be no scope for any liberal interpretation and the benefit should be extended to the citizen. Thus, legislature being conscious of the fact that criminal liability is being fastened and there would be serious consequences insofar as the person so made liable, has consciously used the expression “was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company”. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SABITHA RAMAMURTHY AND ANOTHER vs. R.B.S. CHANNABASAVARADHYA reported in (2006) 10 SCC 581 while examining similar provision found in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that while considering the prayer for quashing of the process issued to the Directors, has held:
“7. A bare perusal xxxx not been complied with. It may be true that it is not necessary for the complainant to specifically reproduce the wordings of the section but what is required is a clear statement of fact so as to enable the court to arrive at a prima facie opinion that the accused are vicariously liable. Section 141 raises a legal fiction. By reason of the said provision, a person although is not personally liable for commission of such an offence would be vicariously liable therefor. Such vicarious liability can be inferred so far as a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is concerned only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint petition, are made so as to make the accused therein vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. Before a person can be made vicariously liable, strict compliance of the statutory requirements would be insisted. Not only the averments made in paragraph 7 of the complaint petitions does not meet the said statutory requirements, the sworn statement of the witness made by the son of Respondent herein, does not contain any statement that Appellants were in charge of the business of the company. In a case where the court is required to issue summons which would put the accused to some sort of harassment; the court should insist strict compliance of the statutory requirements.”
(emphasis supplied) 11. In fact the complainant should specify in the complaint that accused person was incharge of and was responsible to the company in the conduct of the business of the company and in the absence of it, Section 14A cannot be invoked against such directors, manager, officer, etc. of the company. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.M.S PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. vs. NEETA BHALLA & ANR. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89 has held:
“10. … What is required is that the persons who are sought to be made criminally liable under Section 141 should be at the time the offence was committed, in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of the provision. It is only those persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the time of commission of an offence, who will be liable for criminal action. It follows from this that if a Director of a company who was not in charge of and was not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time, will not be liable under the provision. The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. Conversely, a person not holding any office or designation in a company may be liable if he satisfies the main requirement of being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of a company at the relevant time. Liability depends on the role one plays in the affairs of a company and not on designation or status. If being a Director or manager or secretary was enough to cast criminal liability, the section would have said so. Instead of ‘every person’ the section would have said ‘every Director, manager or secretary in a company is liable’ …, etc. The legislature is aware that it is a case of criminal liability which means serious consequences so far as the person sought to be made liable is concerned. Therefore, only persons who can be said to be connected with the commission of a crime at the relevant time have been subjected to action.
18. To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial
subjected to criminal process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That the respondent falls within the parameters of Section 141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there are averments which bring the case within Section 141, he would issue the process. We have seen that merely being described as a Director in a company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non-Director can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case at the trial.”
(emphasis supplied) 12. In the aforesaid analysis of the statutory provisions governing the issue and case laws referred to herein supra, when the facts on hand are examined it would indicate that in the complaint in question an omnibus statement has been made against accused persons. The averment or allegation made in the complaint reads as under:
“3. That the accused are the persons incharge of said establishment and are responsible to it for conduct of its business. They are required to comply with all the provisions of the said Act and the Scheme framed thereunder in respect of the said establishment.”
Smt. B.B. Vidyulatha, learned counsel for respondent by referring to Form No.5A filed on 19.03.2015 – Annexure-R-1 has contended that employer, who is required to give declaration of the ownership as contemplated under Paragraph 36A of the Scheme, had filed such declaration and as such, second petitioner had been arrayed as an accused, though at first blush said agreement looks to be an attractive argument, it is not so for the simple reason that, respondent- complainant themselves admit in their statement of objections about revised Form No.5A having been filed by the covered establishment on 21.07.2015 – Annexure-R-2, whereunder it is clearly indicated that Sri CH K S Prasad, who is Senior Vice President HR is declared to be the owner, who can be brought within the four corners of “person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company”.
13. Though it might be true that in the declaration dated 21.07.2015 – Annexure-R-2, which had been filed by the ‘covered establishment’ came to be rejected by communication dated 27.05.2016 – Annexure-R-3, fact remains a declaration as required under Paragraph 36A of the Scheme had been furnished and thereby complainant ought to have arrayed such person, who was declared to be a person incharge of the company to fasten vicarious liability on such person. Said exercise having not been undertaken by the complainant, this Court is of the considered view that proceedings initiated against second petitioner is contrary to Section 14A of the Act. Thus, in the facts obtained on hand it is not the second petitioner, who is the employer as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and it was Sri.CH K.S.Prasad Rao. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of second petitioner and against respondent. Hence, proceedings against second petitioner is liable to be quashed. However, quashing of the proceedings against second petitioner would not come in the way of respondent-complainant taking appropriate steps for impleading such person who would be responsible for the company to fix vicarious liability subject to such limitations as prescribed under the Act.
RE. POINT NO.2:
14. In the light of complainant alleging there is contravention of Section 6 of the Act r/w Paragraphs 30 and 38, it may not be necessary to extract the said provisions, inasmuch as, neither the first petitioner nor the respondent-complainant have any dispute with regard to the contributions as well as administrative charges having not been remitted within 15 days of close of the respective month, in which it ought to have been remitted. It would also be apt and necessary to note at this juncture itself that complainant also admits that amount has been remitted subsequently.
15. Clause (d) of paragraph 76 of the Scheme prescribes the punishment for contravention of or non compliance with any other requirement of the Scheme. It reads:
“76. Punishment for failure to pay contribution, etc.— If any person --
(a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) xxxx (d) is guilty of contravention of or non-compliance with any other requirement of this Scheme.
he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to [one year, or with fine which may extend to four thousand rupees], or with both.]”
16. In the background of above provision, it has to be examined as to whether non payment of employer’s contribution to the provident fund within 15 days in violation of Paragraph 38 of the Scheme or a similar condition specified under Section 17 of the Act, is a “continuing offence” and therefore, Section 472, Cr.P.C. 1973, would apply for determining the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offence under Section 14 had fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BHAGIRATH KANORIA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF M.P. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 222. It has been held by the Apex Court that a ‘continuing offence’ is one which continues and ‘non continuing offence’ is one which is committed once and for all. It is further held it would necessarily depend upon the language of statute which creates such offence, nature of offence and, above all, the purpose which is intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence. In this background, it came to be held that late payment could not have absolved the employer of their original guilt but it would have snapped the recurrence. It has further held:
“19. The question whether a particular offence is a continuing offence must necessarily depend upon the language of the statute which creates that offence, the nature of the offence and, above all, the purpose which is intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence. Turning to the matters before us, the offence of which the appellants are charged is the failure to pay the employer's contribution before the due date. Considering the object and purpose of this provision, which is to ensure the welfare of workers, we find it impossible to hold that the offence is not of a continuing nature. The appellants were unquestionably liable to pay their contribution to the provident fund before the due date and it was within their power to pay it, as soon after the due date had expired as they willed. The late payment could not have absolved them of their original guilt but it would have snapped the recurrence. Each day that they failed to comply with the obligation to pay their contribution to the fund, they committed a fresh offence. It is putting an incredible premium on lack of concern for the welfare of workers to hold that the employer who has not paid his contribution or the contribution of the employees to the provident fund can successfully evade the penal consequences of his act by pleading the law of limitation. Such offences must be regarded as continuing offences, to which the law of limitation cannot apply.”
17. Thus, on an offence being committed, payment made subsequent thereto, would not absolve the liability of the offender and at the most the Court trying the offence can take note of this fact while awarding sentence. In fact, Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of RAJNEESH AGGARWAL vs. AMIT J. BHALLA reported in (2001) 1 SCC 631 has held quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of payment of having been subsequently made, would be unsustainable in law. It came to be held thereunder:
“7. So far as the question of deposit of the money during the pendency of these appeals is concerned, we may state that in course of hearing the parties wanted to settle the matter in Court and it is in that connection, to prove the bona fides, the respondent deposited the amount covered under all the three cheques in the Court, but the complainant's counsel insisted that if there is going to be a settlement, then all the pending cases between the parties should be settled, which was, however not agreed to by the respondent and, therefore, the matter could not be settled. So far as the criminal complaint is concerned, once the offence is committed, any payment made subsequent thereto will not absolve the accused of the liability of criminal offence, though in the matter of awarding of sentence, it may have some effect on the court trying the offence. But by no stretch of imagination, a criminal proceeding could be quashed on account of deposit of money in the court or that an order of quashing of criminal proceeding, which is otherwise unsustainable in law, could be sustained because of the deposit of money in this Court. In this view of the matter, the so- called deposit of money by the respondent in this Court is of no consequence.
18. In the background of aforestated position of law, contention of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa which is to the effect that amounts have been subsequently paid by “covered establishment” or realized by the complainant and thereby continuation of proceedings would not be required, cannot be accepted and judgment of JASODA GLASS AND SILICATE AND ORS vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS. relied upon by him would recede to background in the light of authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court in the matters of BHAGIRATH KANORIA and RAJNEESH AGGARWAL referred to supra.
19. It is also necessary to observe that if this Court exercises extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings on the ground of payment having been made, it would amount to granting a premium to the defaulter and while considering social beneficial legislation, the object and purport of the Act, which is sought to achieved, will have to be kept in mind viz., the object sought to be achieved under the Act is to ensure welfare of the workers and in the event of criminal prosecution initiated against a defaulter establishment is quashed on the ground of payment having been made though belatedly, it may lead to a situation where the covered establishment’s may say:
-I hide;
- You find/search;
- Then I pay;
- Hence, absolve me of all liabilities.”
This would defeat the purpose and intent of the Act and amounts to granting a premium to such establishments or employers and particularly those who collect the employees’ contribution by deducting the same from the salaries of employees and yet do not remit the amount to the Fund thereby depriving the employees as well as the corpus of Fund not being put to beneficial investment for the benefit of such employees.
20. In the light of aforestated discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petitions are hereby allowed in part and proceedings initiated against second petitioner in C.C.Nos.281/2016, 282/2016,
and 301/2016 pending on the file of Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 14(1A) and 14A r/w Section 6 of Act r/w Paragraphs 30 and 38 and Section 76(d) of the Scheme, is hereby quashed and liberty is reserved to the respondent-complainant to initiate such proceedings against the owner or such other person who is responsible for the affairs of the company so to make him vicariously liable as observed in paragraph 13 hereinabove.
(ii) Prayer for quashing of proceedings against first petitioner in C.C.Nos.281/2016, 282/2016,
and 301/2016 pending on the file of Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 14(1A) and 14A r/w Section 6 of Act r/w Paragraphs 30 and 38 and Section 76(d) of the Scheme, is hereby rejected and jurisdictional Court is hereby directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and subject to both parties cooperating with trial Court.
SD/- JUDGE DR