Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.690-694 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3249-3253/2004)
Union of India ...Appellant(s)
Versus
R.Dhandayuthapani ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent was one of the four persons named in the complaints filed
by the Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Tamil Nadu under Section
14(1A) read with Section 14(A) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provision Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’), which were registered as CC Nos.97-119 and
121 to 133 of 2000. The substratum of the allegations contained in the complaints is
that the employer, namely, M/s. Kominar Textiles (P) Ltd. did not deposit provident
fund dues of the workers for the period from October, 1995 to May, 1997 and
Managing Director, Joint Managing Director and Director of the mill, who were
responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment are responsible for the
same. On being noticed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, the
respondent filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing the proceedings
....2/-
- 2 -
of complaints instituted by the Enforcement Officer by asserting that he had resigned
from the position of Director much before filing of the complaints and an intimation
to this effect was sent to the Registrar of Companies in Form No.32.
By the impugned order, the High Court accepted the respondent’s plea
that he could not have been arrayed as an accused because he had resigned from the
position of the Director before institution of complaints.
A perusal of the record shows that even though an intimation was sent to
the Registrar of Companies on 27.2.1997 about the alleged resignation of the
respondent, in the return of the ownership submitted before the Regional
Commissioner, Provident Funds in Form 5A on 18.8.1997, the respondent was shown
as Director of the Company. This being the position, the question whether or not the
respondent could be held liable for non deposit of the provident fund dues of the
workers ought to have been left to be decided during trial and the High Court was not
justified in quashing the proceedings of the complaints.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court
is set aside. The Trial Court shall now decide the complaints in accordance with law
and while doing so, it shall examine all the pleas which may be taken by the
respondent and others.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New Delhi,
April 09, 2009.