Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 279 (JHR)

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2024-03-07

SANJAY PRASAD

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Prasad, J. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.06.2019, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 (State through Inspector E.P.F. vs. M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam and Anr.), whereby the learned Court below has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. with observation that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge u/s 14(2) of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 and under Para 76(a)(d) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 against the petitioner. 2. The complaint case was filed by the O.P.No.2 on 20.09.2012 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad against the Dhanbad Nagar Nigam, Dhanbad and also against the petitioner for the alleged offence u/s 14(1A), 14(1B) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Para-76 (b) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 read with Sections 14(A), 14A(1), 14 AA of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 on the ground that the Employer failed to pay on account of the Family Pension Fund and the amount of Employees’ and Employer’s contribution for the month from January, 2011 till now, within 15 days of the close of each said month in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 A of the said Act and Para-9 & 10 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 & 38 (1) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with para-39 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and thereby committed the offence(s) punishable u/s 14(IA), 14(2) and 14A of the said Act read with para-76(d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It is further stated that said sanction (in original) for the above prosecution granted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 14 C of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is enclosed herewith and it was further stated that while dealing with accused persons under Section 14 (IA) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the provisions of Section 14 A of the said Act may be taken notice of. 3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned for the petitioner, Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P., Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3. 4. 3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned for the petitioner, Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P., Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 12.6.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned court below, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration that no case is made out against the petitioner under sections 14(2) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under Para 76 (a) (d) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 and the learned Court has observed that sufficient material is on record to frame charge under Section 14(2) of the EPF and MP Act 1952 and under para – 76 (a) (d) of the EPF Scheme 1952, which is illegal and also contrary to the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the observation and direction as contained in the order dated 24.08.2016, passed by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 as well as contrary to the materials available on the record. It is submitted that the learned court below failed to consider that petitioner has not contravened any provisions of the Act and no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 14(2) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under para-76(a) and (d) of the EPF Scheme, 1952. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to consider that in terms of Section 14 AC of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, no sanction has been accorded for launching of present prosecution case as against the petitioner, rather, sanction was only accorded for prosecution of Employer, i.e. M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam. It is submitted that the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration that the petitioner was appointed as Chief Executive Officer in the year 2012 and as such the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any illegality committed by Dhanbad Nagar Nigam prior to his joining on 24.02.2012. It is submitted that the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration that the petitioner was appointed as Chief Executive Officer in the year 2012 and as such the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any illegality committed by Dhanbad Nagar Nigam prior to his joining on 24.02.2012. It is submitted that the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, also failed to consider that the petitioner is a Public Servant and he has been made an accused in respect of discharge of his official duty and as such sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to consider that the charges levelled against the petitioner by the Opp. Party No. 2 is groundless. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to consider that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, vide Annexure-2, has only accorded sanction for prosecution of Dhanbad Nagar Nigam and as such instant criminal case is itself not maintainable as against the petitioner. It is submitted that after passing the order taking cognizance on 20.9.2012, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on 14.2.2014 before the learned Court below to discharge him from the liability of the present prosecution case. It is submitted that the learned Court below heard the discharge petition on 06.07.2015 and after hearing, had been pleased to reject the same in terms of order dated 06.07.2015. It is submitted that the petitioner challenged the order dated 06.07.2015 before this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Rev. No. 1246 of 2015 (Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.) It is submitted that Cr.Rev.No. 1246 of 2015 was finally heard by a Co-ordinate Bench (Mr. It is submitted that the petitioner challenged the order dated 06.07.2015 before this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Rev. No. 1246 of 2015 (Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.) It is submitted that Cr.Rev.No. 1246 of 2015 was finally heard by a Co-ordinate Bench (Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) of this Court and after hearing the parties, the Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to allow the Cr.Rev.No.1246 of 2015 vide Order dated 24.08.2016 passed with following observation:- “In view of the aforesaid facts, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to pass a fresh order after considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the parties as well as on consideration of various legal issues which have been raised by both the parties before this Court.” It is submitted that in pursuant to the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by this Court vide Annexure-5 of the writ application, petitioner filed a petition on 25.02.2017 before the learned Court below along with order dated 24.08.2016 stating therein that no case is made out against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter the impugned order was passed without any basis. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied upon the judgments in the following cases:- (i) K.N. Genda and another etc. Versus The State and etc. reported in 1982 Lab I.C. Page 1777 (ii) JASODA GLASS AND SILICATE Versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER reported in 2002 3 LLJ 1047 Cal. (iii) Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. v. R.P.F. Commr., reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 580, Para 3 and Para 4. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the learned Court has passed the reasoned order in the light of the order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 by the High Court of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the learned Court has passed the reasoned order in the light of the order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 by the High Court of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the petitioner has caused huge loss to the Employees Provident Fund Organization by not depositing the contribution of Employers and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2, after adopting the submission of the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the learned Court below has fully complied with the order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the Employees’ Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act, 1952) is a legislation for providing social security to employees working in any establishment engaging 20 or more persons on any day. It is submitted that the Act also provides for providing insurance and pensionary benefits to the employees. The provident fund and other contributions have to be deposited by the Employer by the 15th of the next month in which the employee has worked in the establishment. It is submitted that in case of failure to deposit the legitimate dues of workers, the EPFO, under section 7A of the Act, can initiate recovery action for the purpose of compelling the Employer to deposit the legitimate dues of the worker. It is submitted that through a quasi-judicial process, the dues of the workers, under Section 7A of the Act, is assessed and the employer/establishment is asked to deposit the amount. Subsequently, action is initiated to levy penalty and damages under section 14B and section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 to provide for the interest on the delayed payment by the employer and also to act as deterrence for them. Subsequently, action is initiated to levy penalty and damages under section 14B and section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 to provide for the interest on the delayed payment by the employer and also to act as deterrence for them. It is submitted that the sanction order was issued vide Order No. JH/ RO/ RNC/ CC/ Appl/ 12/ 2290 dated 19.09.2012 by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R), Regional Office, Ranchi to file prosecution against the establishment 1.M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam through 2.Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Chief Executive Officer, as per provision specified under Section 14 AC of the Act for the offence read with Section 14, 14A of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) RPFC Vs. Shibu Metal Workers reported in 1964-65 (27) FJR 491, (ii) State Vs. Girdhari Lal Bajaj reported in 1962 II LLJ 46 (Bom. DB) It is submitted that the sanction order for prosecution was issued against the establishment M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam as well as Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Chief Executive Officer of the establishment for non-compliance of various provisions contained under the EPF & MP Act, 1952. It is submitted that the petitioner Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Chief Executive Officer of the establishment was the responsible person to ensure the due compliance of the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. As the petitioner failed to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Act despite show cause notice dated 12.07.2012 and letter dated 07.09.2012 being issued to him in this regard, the then competent authority accorded sanction for prosecution against him under the relevant provisions of the Act. It is submitted that it was the prime duty of the petitioner after taking charge as CEO of M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam to make immediate compliance of statutory provisions but he failed to do so despite several correspondences and notices issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that the case against the petitioner is maintainable and proper as he has committed offence cognizable u/s 14 AB and punishable u/s 14(2) of the Act read with Para 76(a) and (d) of the EPF Scheme, 1952. It is submitted that the case against the petitioner is maintainable and proper as he has committed offence cognizable u/s 14 AB and punishable u/s 14(2) of the Act read with Para 76(a) and (d) of the EPF Scheme, 1952. It is submitted that the learned Court below has passed a detailed and reasoned speaking order after appreciating the material on records and thereafter dismissed the petition while observing that sufficient material is on records to frame charge u/s 14(2) of the Act and under Para 76 (a) and (d) of the EPF Scheme, 1952. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has further submitted that a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 12.07.2022 in the light of the order passed by this Court and it has been stated therein that inquiry u/s 7A of the Act was initiated against the Establishment (Dhanbad Nagar Nigam) for the default period 01/2011 to 04/2013 and final order was issued for the assessment of dues for Rs.4,58,896/-dated 31.07.2019 and the same has been remitted by the establishment on 14.08.2019. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that enquiry under Section 7A of the E.P.F. Act was initiated against the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation for the default period from 01/2011 to 04/2013 and final order was issued for assessment of dues amount for Rs.4,58,896/-on 31.07.2019 against the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation by the Employees Provident Fund Authorities and same has also been paid by Dhanbad Municipal Corporation on 14.08.2019. It is further submitted that it would be evident from the materials available on the record that learned Court below has not taken into consideration that no case is made out against the Petitioner under Sections 14(2) of the E.P.F. Act and under para-76 (a)(d) of the E.P.F. Scheme and as such impugned order is illegal. 10. Learned counsel for O.P.No. 3 has supported the claim of the petitioner and submitted that the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to set aside the non-speaking order dated 06.07.2015 by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad passed in E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 while remanding back the matter to consider the material available on record vide Order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Cr.Rev. No. 1246 of 2015. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the subsequent order dated 12.06.2019 on the score that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the material on the record. No. 1246 of 2015. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the subsequent order dated 12.06.2019 on the score that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the material on the record. It is submitted that the Municipal Corporation Dhanbad is regularly making payment of the contributory E.P.F. amount. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 3 has also enclosed the payment of contribution made towards E.P.F. vide chart marked as Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P.No.3. It is submitted that till date there is no dues against the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and the petitioner and therefore, the necessary order may be passed. 11. Perused the records of this case, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 3 and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and considered the submitted of both the sides. 12. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Dhanbad Nagar Nigam, Dhanbad on 24.02.2012. It appears that after joining on 24.02.2012, the petitioner remained on medical leave from November, 2012 to 14.01.2013. 13. It appears that as per complaint petition, the period of alleged offence has been mentioned “from January, 2011 onwards and at that point of time petitioner was not discharging his duty as Chief Executive Officer of the Dhanbad Nagar Nigam, Dhanbad. 14. It appears that earlier the petitioner had challenged the order dated 06.7.2015 passed by the learned Court below by filing Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015, which was disposed of on 24.08.2016 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Mr. 14. It appears that earlier the petitioner had challenged the order dated 06.7.2015 passed by the learned Court below by filing Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015, which was disposed of on 24.08.2016 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) by remanding the matter to the learned Court below with the following observations:- “In view of the aforesaid facts, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to pass a fresh order after considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the parties as well as on consideration of various legal issues which have been raised by both the parties before this Court.” It appears that after remand of the matter by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.08.2016 in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015, the learned Court below has passed the impugned order by rejecting the discharge petition filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. by observing as follows:- “Hence, taking above discussions into consideration, I am of the opinion that at this juncture, there are sufficient materials on record to frame charge u/s 14(2) of the EPF and M.P. Act 1952 and under Para 76 (a)(d) of the E.P.F. Scheme-1952 against the petitioner Awadhesh Kumar Pandey & M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam. Therefore, I find that the petition filed by the petitioner namely Awadhesh Kumar Pandey is sans of merit. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.” 15. Therefore, I find that the petition filed by the petitioner namely Awadhesh Kumar Pandey is sans of merit. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.” 15. From perusal of the complaint, instituted by the Inspector-Enforcement Officer on 25.09.2012, it would appear that O.P. No. 3, i.e. Dhanbad Nagar Nigam and the petitioner-Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, while working as Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Nagar Nigam have failed to pay on account of the family pension fund, the amount of employees’ and employers’ contributions for the month of January, 2011 up till now (i.e. 25.09.2012) within 15 days of close of each said month in accordance with the provisions of Section-6 A of the said Act and Para -9 and 10 of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and 38(1) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with paragraph-39 of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and thereby committed the offence (s) punishable under Section 14(A), 14(2) and 14A of the said Act read with paragraph 76(d) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. However, it transpires that Para 3, Para 4(a), Para 5, Para 6 were not filled up at the time of filing of complaint by the Enforcement Officer/Provident Fund Inspector and even the names of witnesses have not been mentioned in the said complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer. 16. It is surprising that the complaint petition was signed by one Flora Ekka, then Enforcement Officer, E.P.F.O., Jharkhand on 25.09.2012, but surprisingly, it was seen by the then learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, on 20.09.2012. The filing of the said complaint appears to be ante dated as it was seen by the learned S.D.J.M. on 20.09.2012 although signed by the complainant-Enforcement Officer on 25.09.2012. 17. It further transpires that even on 20.09.2012, the learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance under Section 14(IA), 14(IB) of the E.P.F & M.P Act 1952 against M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam and petitioner-Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey in his personal capacity. 18. 17. It further transpires that even on 20.09.2012, the learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance under Section 14(IA), 14(IB) of the E.P.F & M.P Act 1952 against M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam and petitioner-Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey in his personal capacity. 18. It further appears from the pleading of the parties that vide Annexure-2, which is letter dated 19.09.2012 issued by one S.S. Prasad, then Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R) Regional Office, Jharkhand, by which sanction was accorded for filing complaint in order to prosecute the Employer for the offences under Section 14 AB of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 punishable under Section 14(2) of the said Act read with Para 76 (b)(c) & (d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. 19. It transpires that petitioner earlier moved before this Court vide Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 challenging the order dated 6.7.2015, by which discharge petition filed by the petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 20. Thereafter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for both the sides, i.e. the petitioner and O.P. No. 2, had quashed the said order dated 06.7.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 and had remanded back the matter before the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad to pass a fresh order after considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the parties as well as on consideration of various legal issues which have been raised by both the parties before this Court and the copy of the said Order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1245 of 2015 has been enclosed as Annexure 5 to this Revision Application. 21. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a petition on 25.02.2017 before the learned Court below in the light of order dated 24.08.2016, passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015, however, by impugned order dated 12.06.2019, then S.D.J.M., Dhanbad has again rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner without complying with the direction passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1245 of 2015 on 24.08.2016. The learned Court below has merely heard the submission of both the sides and had rejected the discharge petition on the ground that there are sufficient materials on record to frame charge against the accused-petitioner under Section 14 (2) E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 and under Para 76 (a)(d) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952. 22. At this Stage, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment dated 24.08.2016, passed in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 (Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand), relevant paragraphs at Page No. 5 and 6 of which are as follows: “It has strenuously been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the vagueness of the allegations and that the complaint petition is a typed format wherein certain irrelevant paragraphs have been inserted, not germane to the allegations made and on the other hand several paragraphs which could have been made applicable to the case of the petitioner have not been properly filled-up. Further argument has also been made with respect to the fact that sanction have been accorded does not form part of the order taking cognizance, which however has been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 in view of the provisions of Para-76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 as well as Section 6 of the Act and if the sanction order if read in totality would indicate various violation which had been made by the Corporation as well as by the petitioner. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and controverted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 245 Cr.P.C. The impugned order virtually restricts itself only to the factual aspect of the matter that the petitioner has failed to pay the provident fund amount of the employees’ share of contribution for the month of January, 2011 till date of filing of the complaint without entering into the various material issues which have been raised by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 06.07.2015 itself is a thoroughly non-speaking order which does not reflect either any reasons or any factual or legal aspect which forms part of the impugned order so as to justify the rejection of the discharge application preferred by the petitioner u/s 245 Cr.P.C. Since this Court is of the view that the matter be reheard by the learned trial court, the contentious issues which have been raised by both the parties have not been discussed as the same is left open to the learned trial court to consider in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid facts, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in E.P.F Case No. 02 of 2012 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to pass a fresh order after considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the parties as well as on consideration of various legal issues which have been raised by both the parties before this Court.” 23. It further appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 that sanction was properly granted under Section 14AC of the E.P.F. Act and Para 76(a)(d) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952. It has also been stated that petitioner was aware of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952, but he failed to ensure the compliance of the said provisions and even show-cause notice dated 12.07.2012 and letter dated 07.9.2012 were issued to him and photocopy of show-cause notice dated 12.07.2012 and letter dated 07.09.2012 have been enclosed as Annexure B Series to the counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No. 2. 24. From perusal of show-cause Notice dated 12.07.2012, it would appear that notice was issued to the petitioner A.K. Pandey, Chief Executive Officer, whereas Letter dated 07.9.2012 was also issued to the Chief Executive Officer. 25. However, the petitioner, by filing reply has denied and has stated that the statement with regard to sending notice and letter upon the petitioner is misleading and misconceived and not correct. 26. 25. However, the petitioner, by filing reply has denied and has stated that the statement with regard to sending notice and letter upon the petitioner is misleading and misconceived and not correct. 26. It is further evident that even at the time of filing complaint case by the Enforcement Officer before the S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, several paragraphs, i.e. Paragraph 3, 4A are blank and the same were not duly filled up and as such even the learned Court below has taken cognizance on an incomplete paper, which shows complete non-application of mind by the learned Court below. 27. It has been held in the case of K.N. Genda and another etc. Versus The State and etc. reported in 1982 Lab I.C. Page 1777 at Para 10 as follows: “Para 10:-Mr. Roy next submits that in the petitions of complaint minimum statements have not been made so as to connect the accused person with the alleged offence. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy refers to the decisions reported in (1970) 1 SCC 665 : AIR 1970 SC 1153 (Supra); (1971) 3 SCC 189 : AIR 1971 SC 2162 (supra); 1981 (2) Cal HN 301 (supra); Reference may be made to a Bench decision reported in 1978 Cal HN 336 : 1978 Lab IC 898, (Mahalderam Tea Estate Private Ltd. v. D.N. Pradhan). In this case, it was held “A Director of a Company may be concerned only with the policy to be followed and might not have any hand in the management of its day to day affairs. Such person must necessarily be immune from such prosectuion under Sec. 14A of the Act under which a Company is made primarily liable.” It was also held that there was no material from which the learned Magistrate could satisfy himself that the petitioners took some part in the running of the business of the Company. In the absence of such averments in the petitions of complaint the cognizance taken is bad in law and must be quashed.” Reference may also be made to another Bench Decision of this Court, reported in 1979 Cri LJ 86, (G. Atherton & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta). That was a case under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under S. 17 of the Act a Company has been made primarily liable. (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta). That was a case under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under S. 17 of the Act a Company has been made primarily liable. It was held that “to make other persons vicariously liable, it has to be shown that such persons were in charge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its day to day business. In the absence of any mentioning in the petition of complaint as to how the accused persons were concerned in the carrying on of the day to day business of the company, process could not have been issued against them.” We had to consider all these decisions while deciding the case reported in 1981 (2) Cal HN 301 (supra). In paragraph 3 of the petition of complaints it has simply been stated that accused Nos. 2 to 5 at all material time were the persons in-charge of the establishment and were responsible to it for the conduct of its business. Same thing was stated in paragraph 5 also. In our opinion, these averments are not sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged offence. For the reasons elaborately stated by us while disposing of Criminal Revision No. 805 of 1982 we hold that in these cases also the petitions of complaint should be quashed. In the result, the application in Criminal Revision Case No. 805 of 1982 succeeds and the proceeding is quashed. Rules issued in Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1822 to 1826 of 1980 are made absolute and the proceedings are quashed.” 28. The learned Court below also failed to decide that sanction was not obtained properly by the Department so far as this petitioner is concerned as the then Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had accorded sanction for filing of the complaint case against Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and the petitioner, but as a matter of fact, it appears that the prosecution was launched only in respect of the Employer, M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam and the petitioner has been shown as Chief Executive Officer for the said period but he was not working from January, 2011 till 23.2.2012 and he appear to have joined the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation on 24.2.2012 and which has not been disputed by the O.P. No. 2. 29. 29. It further transpires that even O.P. No. 3, i.e. the Dhanbad Nagar Nigam has also filed its counter affidavit on 22.08.2022 and has emphatically stated that Municipal Corporation of Dhanbad was making payment of the contributory E.P.F. amount and in support of the same a chart showing payment of E.P.F. Contributory amount from January, 2011 till February, 2015 has been enclosed as Annexure A to the said counter affidavit. 30. It appears from the chart enclosed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit of O.P. No.3 that payment has been made for the period in question in the year 2018, but it is also evident that payments have been confirmed as per the status and even this fact has also not been denied by the learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 31. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. v. R.P.F. Commr. reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 580, at Page 3 and 4 as follows:- “Para 3:-We do not think it is necessary for us to go into the details of the High Court's judgment or the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. The prosecution was initiated in respect of certain offences alleged to have been committed in 1976, about 15 years back. We are informed that two of the appellants have subsequently died. The offence alleged is the failure to deposit the amounts under the enactments for a short period of four months immediately following the discharge of the appellant-company from the receivership. During the pendency of these appeals, this Court granted stay of further proceedings by way of prosecution on condition that the appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000 and furnished a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs 60,000 to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court within a period of six weeks. We are informed that the sum of Rs 40,000 has been deposited and that the bank guarantee for Rs. 60,000 has also been furnished. We are also informed that the amount in respect of which there was default would also be in the region of about Rs 90,000. We are informed that the sum of Rs 40,000 has been deposited and that the bank guarantee for Rs. 60,000 has also been furnished. We are also informed that the amount in respect of which there was default would also be in the region of about Rs 90,000. Taking into account all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is a case in which the proceedings by way of prosecution need not be pursued provided the amounts deposited in Court and secured by the bank guarantee are paid over to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for credit to the appropriate accounts. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated before us that they have no objection to the first respondent withdrawing the amount of Rs 40,000 deposited in the court and are also willing to have the first respondent encash the bank guarantee of Rs 60,000 already furnished. Para 4:-In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is an appropriate case in which the proceedings for prosecution initiated by the impugned notices should be quashed subject to the above condition that the amount of Rs 1,00,000 be paid to the first respondent who will be at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs 40,000 and encash the bank guarantee of Rs 60,000. We direct accordingly.” 32. It has been held in the case of JASODA GLASS AND SILICATE Versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER reported in 2002 3 LLJ 1047 Cal at Para 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26:- “Para 17:-Sri Biswas submitted that the defaults in this case were committed over several months and the fact situation was, therefore, quite different from the facts in the Adoni cotton Mills Ltd. case (supra). Para 18:-It was pointed out that the appellants had been duly notified of the Section 7-A proceedings and prosecution had been duly sanctioned by the Regional Provident Fund commissioner, West Bengal, after the failure of the appellants to comply with the demand notices duly served on them pursuant to the adjudication under Section 7-A of the employees' Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Para 19:-Sri Biswas submitted that the same question had been considered by a Division bench of this Court in an unreported judgment in the case of Heavy Mechanical Lifting enterprise v. Union of India and others, in an appeal from Matter No. 97 of 1993. Para 19:-Sri Biswas submitted that the same question had been considered by a Division bench of this Court in an unreported judgment in the case of Heavy Mechanical Lifting enterprise v. Union of India and others, in an appeal from Matter No. 97 of 1993. Sri Biswas submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Provident Fund inspector, Faridabad (supra) relied upon by Sri bhattacharjee in this case, was also considered by the Division Bench in the said appeal and it was ultimately held that under Section 14 (1 A) of the 1952 Act any person who commits a default in complying with the provisions of section 6 or Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 or Para. 38 of the scheme is liable to be punished. It was also held that when default had been committed in respect of the deposits required to be made under Section 6, the offence stands committed, and any subsequent deposit could not cause a waiver of the prosecution but could only be a consideration for imposing minimum sentence in accordance with law. Para 23:-We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and have also noted the fact that pursuant to the orders of the Court in this appeal the outstanding dues have been deposited by the appellants. However, the fact still remains that as soon as default was committed, it constituted an offence punishable under Section 14 of the employees' Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, with imprisonment and fine also. Para 24:-Notwithstanding the above position, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Adoni Cotton mills Ltd. case (supra) quashed the proceedings for prosecution initiated on the notices to show cause as to why prosecution for default should not be taken under Sections 14 and 14-A of the 1952 Act since the amount in default had been partly deposited and partly secured. Para 25:-In the case before us, the appellants have also deposited all the dues which were allegedly outstanding on the strength of orders passed from time to time. Para 25:-In the case before us, the appellants have also deposited all the dues which were allegedly outstanding on the strength of orders passed from time to time. Para 26:-In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we dispose of the appeal with leave to the appellants to file separate affidavits before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 parganas, in respect of each separate complaint giving details of the payments of the amounts in default in each such complaint, and if the learned Magistrate is satisfied that such payments have been duly made, he shall take steps to drop the proceedings in respect of which such payments have been made.” 33. It appears that the O.P. No. 3 has updated the payment and although the defaults have been committed for several months but the same has been paid by the O.P. No. 3 to the office of the O.P. No. 2 as it reveals from the Chart of payment enclosed by the O.P. No.3 in the counter affidavit dated 22.08.2022 and thus, there is no dues now. 34. Under the circumstances, it is clear that no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the learned Court below again to decide the matter afresh as the learned Court below has failed to exercise its due diligence while passing the impugned order dated 12.06.2019 in complete disregard of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 on 28.04.2016. 35. Thus, in view of the discussions made above and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court, the impugned order dated 12.06.2019, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner, namely Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, is set aside and the petitioner, namely Awadhesh Kumar Pandey is discharged in connection with E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 (State through Inspector E.P.F. vs. M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam And Anr.). 36. Thus, this Criminal Revision Application is allowed. 37. Let a copy of this order be sent by Fax to the Learned Court below.