Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 764 (KER)

Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Enforcement Officer

2002-11-21

R.BASANT

body2002
Judgment :- These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are filed by the petitioners who are accused 1to 3 in C.C.Nos.1013, 1015, 1014, 1012, 1019, 1016, 1018 and 1016 of 1999 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kollam. These cases have been initiated on the basis of complaints filed by the first respondent, the Enforcement Officer of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation. The allegation is that the company (first petitioner) and the officials in charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs (A2 and A3) committed willful default in payment of amounts due to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation. The complaints were filed in 1999. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised three contentions to persuade this court to quash the complaints. The first contention is that the first petitioner company is a sick company and proceedings under the relevant statute is pending before the BIFR. This by itself cannot obviously be a ground to discontinue the proceedings initiated earlier. That contention cannot hence be accepted. 3. The next contention is that petitioners 2 and 3 are not persons in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs. The learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant points out that documents have been produced which would show that the relevant declarations are given showing petitioners 2 and 3 as the persons in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the affairs. The contours of the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Crl.P.C. must be borne in mind alertly. Resolution of disputed questions of fact is not an exercise which will be undertaken in this jurisdiction. The parties will have their opportunity to raise all their contentions before the appropriate forum and no interference is necessary or warranted under Section 482 Crl.P.C. on the basis of this disputed question of fact. 4. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that Annexure B order dt.27.3.2000 was issued by the BIFR directing the Employees’ Provident Fund Commissioner to desist from initiating any penal action for a period of six months from that date. Admittedly that order has worked itself out. There is no contention that the said order has been extended beyond the period of six months. Admittedly that order has worked itself out. There is no contention that the said order has been extended beyond the period of six months. Moreover the said order Annexure B does not also in any way affect the continuation of the penal action already initiated also. These complaints were filed earlier. In any view of the matter the third contention raised is also not sufficient for persuade this court to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C. 5. It follows in these circumstances that these petitions cannot be considered favourably. The challenge fails. 6. In the result, these Crl.M.Cz are dismissed.