Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2297 (MAD)

G. Manickamurthy v. Kesavarayalu

2011-04-21

R.MALA

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The Crl.R.C. is filed against the order dated 28.1.2005 in Crl.M.P.No.3066 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Madurantakam. 2. The respondents/accused filed an application for return of documents which were seized by the revision petitioner/complainant/Enforcement Officer of Provident Funds, for production before the enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the proceedings have been over and the respondents/accused have come forward with such application for return of the documents, and the said application was allowed, against which, the revision petitioner/complainant has preferred this Crl.R.C. 3. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant submitted that those documents related to the years 1987-88 to 1993-94 and those records are not necessary for the administration of the School. It is true that the documents were seized and verified and during the shifting of the office, they have been misplaced and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused submitted that those documents were called for, for verifying and prosecuting under Section 7-A of the said Act. But it is immaterial whether the documents are necessary for the administration of the School or not, and since the documents have been secured by the revision petitioner/complainant, it is the duty of the complainant to return back the same, and the trial Court considered the same in proper perspective and allowed the application for return of documents and directed the revision petitioner/complainant to return back the documents and so, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused further submitted that those documents are necessary to prove as to how many persons were employed and whether the Provident Funds have been deducted from the salary of the staff and also to prove their innocence, the documents are needed and hence, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, admittedly, the respondents/accused were prosecuted under Sections 14(1B) and 14-A of the said Act. Admittedly, the documents mentioned in the petition pertain to 1987-88 to 1993-94 and the documents are the Attendance Register and the Salary Acquittance Register and the case is still pending and to prove the innocence of the respondents/accused, the documents are necessary. Admittedly, the documents mentioned in the petition pertain to 1987-88 to 1993-94 and the documents are the Attendance Register and the Salary Acquittance Register and the case is still pending and to prove the innocence of the respondents/accused, the documents are necessary. As stated above, the documents are Attendance Register and the Salary Acquittance Register, which will clearly prove as to how many persons were employed and whether the Provident Funds have been collected from the teaching and non-teaching staff. In such circumstances, I am of the view that those documents are necessary to prove the innocence of the respondents/accused. 6. Admittedly, those documents are received by the revision petitioner/complainant and so, it is their duty to secure those documents and return them back to the respondents/accused. 7. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant that there is no mens-rea, since it is only the recovery proceedings initiated under Sections 14(1B) and 14-A of the said Act. 8. There is no quarrel over the said proceedings initiated and they are the recovery proceedings and to prove as to how many teaching and non-teaching staff worked and to prove as to whether the Provident Fund contribution had been made by the teaching and non-teaching staff and recovered, and the documents which were maintained from 1987-88 to 1993-94, are necessary for proper adjudication and in such circumstances, the above argument made by learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant, does not merit acceptance. 9. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merits in the Crl.R.C., which deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Crl.M.P. is closed.