JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Admit. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, heard forthwith.

2. Though these revisions arise out of two different complaints filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner, yet the points involved in both of them are common and as such the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

3. In Criminal Revision Application No. 122 of 2001, Criminal Complaint No. R-579/1998 was filed by respondent against the petitioner in the Court of J.M.F.C., Nagpur for offence under sections 85(e) read with section 85(ii) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as the said Act), for failing to submit the return of contribution for period ending on 31-3-1998 in time in Form-VI in respect of the employees of the factory/establishment "M/s. Complex Plastic Industries, Nagpur".

4. The complaint was filed on 23-11-1998 and on 28-8-1999, the petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the complaint for want of compliance of mandatory provisions contained in section 204(2), 204(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This application was objected by respondent No. 1 (complainant). The Magistrate granted this application by a non speaking order and discharged the petitioner. This order of the Magistrate was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Sessions Court, Nagpur and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, vide judgment dated 9-7-2001, allowed the revision and set aside the order of J.M.F.C., Nagpur. The complaint was ordered to be restored and the parties were directed to appear before J.M.F.C., Nagpur on 20-8-2001. This order dated 9-7-2001 is subject matter of challenge by the present petitioner in this revision.

5. The facts are identical in Criminal Revision Application No. 123 of 2001 wherein a similar Complaint No. R-151/1998 was filed in respect of section 85(a) read with section 85(b) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 for failing to pay the contribution in respect of employees of the factory/establishment, M/s. Complex Plastic Industries, Nagpur for the wage period from October, 1997 to March, 1998 on or before 21st of each month following. This complaint was filed on 28-11-1998 and application for dismissal of the complaint was filed by the petitioner on 19-3-1999 on the ground that the provisions contained in section 204(2), 204(3) Cri.P.C., which are mandatory had not been complied with. This application was opposed by respondent No. 1 and the J.M.F.C., Nagpur, vide non-speaking order dated 11-10-1999 allowed the application and discharged the petitioner. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 in the Court of Session, Nagpur and the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide judgment dated 9-7-2001 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 11-10-1999 of J.M.F.C., Nagpur. The complaint was restored and the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court on 20th August, 2001. This order is subject matter of challenge in these revisions, filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that even though in the complaints, it is specifically stated in the prayer that the complainant be allowed to examine witnesses, yet no list of witnesses was filed and in the absence of filing of list of witness, the trial Court could not issue process against the petitioner in the light of the mandatory provisions contained in section 204(2) of Cri.P.C. Secondly, it is urged that no copy of the complaint was sent along with the summons after the order of issue of process resulting in breach of section 204(3) of Cri.P.C. provisions of which are mandatory. He, therefore, contends that in view of the mandatory violation of section 204(2) and 204(3) the process could not have been issued and the issue of process in breach of the said provisions was, therefore, sufficient to dismiss the complaint, but the Additional Sessions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document