SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 793

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, JJ.
AMIT VASHISTHA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SURESH AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.245 OF 2010
Decided On : 31-08-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
An authority presiding over a judicial proceeding will be competent to file complaint u/s 228 CrPC even though it does not partake nature of a court.

Headnote:(a) Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 7A r/w Section 195(1)(b)(i), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 228, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Whether the authority holding proceedings under Section 7A is a court – Proceedings judicial in nature within meaning of sections 193 and 228, IPC – Whether the proceedings partake character of court, held, irrelevant – Judicial proceeding and proceeding before a court – Distinction.

       (1964) 6 SCR 700 – Relied upon

       (b) Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 7A r/w Section 195(1)(b)(i), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 228, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Proceedings being judicial, presiding officer compoetenmt to file contempt before Judicial Magistrate – Contention that compliant ought to be file before Tribunal u/s 340 Cr.P.C. rejected. (Para 7)

       Facts of the case:

       In an adjudication proceeding under Section 7A of the Act, with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint on 22.06.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 228 IPC, that the respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing the Presiding Officer, and rushed to assault him, but the complainant was saved by the office staff. The Magistrate convicted the respondent till rising of the Court and imposed fine of Rs.500/-with default stipulation. In appeal, preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on an undertaking of good behavior for a period of one year. Aggrieved, the respondent moved the High Court in a revision application wherein he was acquitted.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2009 in Criminal Revision No.445 of 2007. By the impugned order, the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code on the premise that the adjudication proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter for short the ‘Act’) not being before a court, the complaint itself was not maintainable.

2. In an adjudication proceeding under Section 7A of the Act, with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint on 22.06.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 228 IPC, that the respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing the Presiding Officer, and rushed to assault him, but the complainant was saved by the office staff. The Magistrate convicted the respondent till rising of the Court and imposed fine of Rs.500/-with default stipulation. In appeal, preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on an undertaking of good behavior for a period of one year. Aggrieved, the respondent moved the High Court in a revision application leading to the impugned order, thus the present appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court erred in not appreciating that the proceedings under Section 7A were judicial proceedings, and misdirected itself in concluding that the office of the appellant was not a court, and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C’).

4. The respondent appearing in person, supporting the impugned order submitted that the proceedings under Section 7A not being before a court, the High Court rightly held that no complaint could have been filed under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C which was applicable only to proceedings before a court. It was next submitted that in any event the complaint could have been filed, if at all, before the appellate tribunal under Section 7J of the Act, and not before the magistrate directly.

5. The facts are not in dispute, and neither is it in dispute that the appellant is a public servant. The only question for consideration is if the complaint under Section 228 IPC was maintainable in view of the proceeding under Section 7A deemed to be a judicial proceeding or whether the proceedings had to be before a court to invoke Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.

6. Section 2(i) of the Cr.P.C defines a judicial proceeding to include any proceedings in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. This power is indisputably statutorily vested in the authority holding proceedings under Section 7A of the Act. The legislature, in its wisdom, considering the seriousness of the adjudicatory process under the said provision, vested it with the nature of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC. If the proceedings under Section 7A are deemed to be a judicial proceeding by fiction, it must be carried to its logical conclusion. Therefore, such a judicial proceeding can well be equated for that purpose with a court under Section 195(1)(b)(i). Whether the proceedings under Section 7A will partake the character of a court or not, is not relevant to the controversy. The High Court failed to consider the effect of the judicial nature of the proceeding, simply by reference to Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. to hold that the proceedings did not partake the nature of a court, and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. A similar issue was considered in Lalji Haridas vs. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 6 SCR 700, observing as follows:-

“14. It is somewhat remarkable that though Section 193 IPC, refers to a judicial proceeding, Section 195 CrPC refers to a proceeding in any co





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top