Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1469 (RAJ)

Harnath Singh Bafna v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-25

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners are challening order dated 18.09.2001 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Revision No.21/2001, whereby, the revisional Court dismissed the revision filed against order dated 21.12.2000 passed by Judl. Magistrate No.2, Udaipur (North), by which, charge under Sections 406 and 409, I.P.C. was framed against the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 11.03.1998 Enforcement Inspector, employee of the Provident Fund Department, Udaipur sent a report through post to Police Station Ambamata to the effect that Perfect Thread Mills Ltd. Amberi is an employer within the meaning of Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act and according to provisions of the Act the said company was under obligation to deduct contribution from the wages of the employee towards the provident fund, then, they are required to deposit the deducted amount within 15 days along with the company's contribution but, at the time of inspection on 06.03.1998, it was found that said amount towards provident fund was deducted from August 1997 to January 1998. Said amount was to the tune of Rs. 5,78,962/-, however, the amount was not deposited by the employer in the provident fund account. 3. The police, after investigation, filed final report in the matter stating that the case is of civil nature, then, the Magistrate issued notice to the complainant upon the FR and, after hearing the complainant, took cognizance against the petitioners and proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners vide order dated 21.12.2000. 4. The petitioners preferred revision petition before the revisional Court and vide judgment dated 18.09.2001 learned revisional Court dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the Magistrate dated 21.12.2000. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunil Mehta argued that petitioners are working on the posts of Managing Director and Manager, therefore, they do not fall within the meaning of 'employer' and as such charge framed against them deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunil Mehta argued that petitioners are working on the posts of Managing Director and Manager, therefore, they do not fall within the meaning of 'employer' and as such charge framed against them deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that although revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed but still the petitioners can challenge the order of charge as well as order passed by the revisional Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 288 , Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. S.K. Aggarwal & Others ; and, (2008) 5 SCC 662 , S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others , the order of taking cognizance, impugned in this petition, deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court, reported in 2008 (2) WLC 303, and submits that in view of the above judgments both the orders impugned may be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State, in the midst of arguments, invited attention of this Court towards the fact that similar case was dismissed by this Court filed by the same petitioners, against which, a petition for special leave was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is evident from order-sheet of the present case dated 10.05.2002, therefore, the petitioners may be directed to apprise this Court of the result of the said SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. Upon the above objection raised by learned Public Prosecutor, a pointed query was made after perusing order dated 10.05.2002 of this petition to ascertain whether the said SLP is still pending before the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners replied that Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No.395/2002 were listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.06.2007 but the same were dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by one line order, therefore, the said dismissal will not come in way of adjudicating this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners replied that Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No.395/2002 were listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.06.2007 but the same were dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by one line order, therefore, the said dismissal will not come in way of adjudicating this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners cannot be termed as employer and in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation (supra) the proceedings may be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2002) 9 SCC 661 and, yet another judgment, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121 ; and, submits that dismissal of SLP at admission stage has been held to have no precedent value, therefore, the matter may be decided on merit. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently argued that the petitioners' counsel himself made a prayer on 10.05.2002 to wait for the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the petitioners and, after dismissal, either by one-line order or detailed order, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief because there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below. 12. After hearing both the sides, I have perused order dated 10.05.2002 passed in this case which is as follows : "SBCr. Misc. Petition No.255/2002 Date of Order : 10/5/2002 Hon'ble Sh. Harbans Lal, J. Mr. Sandeep mehta, for the petitioner Mr. M.A. Bhurat, PP for the State. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned P.P. on behalf of State. Admit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in one of the similar matters against the same company, leave has been granted by Hon'ble Apex Court. He has, therefore, prayed that the hearing of this matter may be deferred until the decision of the S.L.P. because the judgment in the S.L.P. would govern this matter also. Accordingly, this petition be listed for hearing after the decision of S.L.P. The interim order dated 8.4.2002 granted by this Court is confirmed till the final disposal of this petition. Sd/- (HARBANS LAL), J." 13. Accordingly, this petition be listed for hearing after the decision of S.L.P. The interim order dated 8.4.2002 granted by this Court is confirmed till the final disposal of this petition. Sd/- (HARBANS LAL), J." 13. Upon perusal of the above order which is passed upon the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that in the event of dismissal of the petitioners' SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.06.2007 now the petitioners cannot take contrary plea to interfere in this matter for the reason that Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the petitioners in one line. 14. It is true that as per the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court the one-line order of dismissal of the SLP has no precedent value but, here, in this case, the day on which the appeals were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court viz., 20.06.2007, all the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners for discharging were in existence even though Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners in similar case, therefore, in my opinion, contention of the petitioners does not require acceptance because admittedly the petitioners themselves made prayer on 10.05.2002 that judgment of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed in similar case would govern this matter also. In this view of the matter, after dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court in similar cases, no ground remains to interfere in the order of the trial Court for taking cognizance as well as in the order passed by the revisional Court against the petitioners.Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******