Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 872 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal Prasrampuria v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-10

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal' misc. petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and judicial Magistrate, Tijara District Alwar in Cr. Case No. 590A/2002 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 409 Indian Penal Code and the revision filed by the present petitioner has also been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed against the present petitioner stating therein that the present petitioner is the Managing Director of the firm M/s Parasrampuria Synthtics Ltd. and he was responsible for depositing the E.S.I. Contribution deducted for the period from December, 2000 to May, 2001. The record of the firm goes to show that the contribution has been deducted from the concerned employees but it has not been deposited with the concerned authorities and by retaining this amount, the present petitioner has committed the offence under Section 406 and 409 Indian Penal Code On this complaint, an enquiry has been conducted under Sections 200 land 202 Criminal Procedure Code and after enquiry, cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that he has resigned from the post of Managing Director on 7.7.2001. He was not responsible for the control over the affairs of the company. A notice has been issued to the company to deposit the E.S.I. contribution for the period from December, 2000 to May, 2001 and the entire amount has been deposited by the company and a certificate was issued by the complainant department. Hence no misappropriation has been done by them and the impugned order is an abuse of process and is liable to be quashed. The principal employer of the company is the Manager who is responsible for depositing the E.S.I. contribution. The present petitioner is not responsible for depositing the amount and hence the impugned order should be quashed. 4. Hence no misappropriation has been done by them and the impugned order is an abuse of process and is liable to be quashed. The principal employer of the company is the Manager who is responsible for depositing the E.S.I. contribution. The present petitioner is not responsible for depositing the amount and hence the impugned order should be quashed. 4. The first contention of the present petitioner is that he is not the in charge of the affairs of the company and the Managing Director could not be termed as principal employer and he has placed reliance on the judgments reported in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Shri M.P. Roongta & Anr., 1987 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 237 , and M.C. Golcha v. The State, 1985 R.L.W. 196 , wherein looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been held that the Manager of the company is principal employer and the Managing Director could not be termed as principal employer within the meaning of Section 2 (17) and Section 40 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. 5. The contention of the respondent is that in the case in hand, nothing has been suggested that the present petitioner is not the in-charge of the affairs of the Company. He was the Managing Director at the relevant time. The contribution has not been deposited for the period from December, 2000 to May, 2001 and according to the contention of the present petitioner he has resigned from the company on 7.7.2001, which could not absolve him from liability regarding the impugned period and the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Gurdial Singli & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 1741 , wherein it has been held that any person responsible for supervision and control of the establishment will include in the definition of the principal employer. Hence the controversy in question is that who is the actual in-charge of the management of the company? The present petitioner is free to put forth his contention before the trial Court that he is not the person in-charge of the company. The trial Court has considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6) and has taken cognizance of the offence. The present petitioner is free to put forth his contention before the trial Court that he is not the person in-charge of the company. The trial Court has considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6) and has taken cognizance of the offence. It is not is dispute that at the stage of taking of cognizance, only prima facie evidence is sufficient to proceed. 6. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance of the notice, entire amount has been deposited. Be that as it may be. The contention of the respondent is that within the stipulated time, the amount has not been deposited and hence the present petitioner is liable for misappropriation of amount. 7. The Court below has considered the various aspects of the matter and after prima facie satisfying that there is evidence against the present petitioner to proceed, cognizance has been rightly taken against the present petitioner. 8. The contentions of the respondent are the defence versions which can be taken before the trial Court, no fault can be found in the impugned order, as on the prima facie evidence, cognizance has been taken. 9. This misc. petition, by way of second revision, is misconceived and there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******