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

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
Himanshu Shekhar S/o Shri Sahdeo Jha – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.868 of 2021, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1115 of 2021
Decided on : 09-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the EPFO :Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG 11

The main legal point established in the judgment is that employers have a statutory obligation under the EPF Act, and non-compliance leading to misappropriation of provident fund contributions can constitute criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

EPF Act - Criminal Breach of Trust - Indian Penal Code, section 405 - The court discussed the provisions of the EPF Act, 1952 and the Indian Penal Code, section 405, and their interpretations in the context of the case. The court highlighted the legal obligations of employers under the EPF Act and the consequences of non-compliance, leading to the commission of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged misappropriation of provident fund contributions. The petitioners argued that they, as employees, were not responsible for the alleged offences as the company had become non-functional.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust against the petitioners, and therefore, the FIR should not be quashed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be held responsible for the alleged misappropriation of provident fund contributions despite their roles as employees and the non-functional status of the company.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR should not be quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offence, and the investigation should be allowed to proceed as per the statutory rights and duties of the police.

Final Decision: Both applications for quashing the FIR were dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned senior counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners in both the applications have filed their applications praying for quashing of the first information report of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case no. 340 of 2021 registered on 17.7.2021 under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The FIR was registered on the basis of written statement dated 16.7.2021 of the Enforcement Officer, Regional Office, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Patna, Bihar addressed to the Officer In-charge, Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Patna. It was stated therein that M/s Sahabad Investment and Traders Ltd. (SINTRA) is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EPF Act’) with effect from 31.7.1972 bearing code no. BR/PAT/2006. By letter dated 4.5.1976 SINTRA was granted relaxation under para 79 of the EPF Scheme, 1952, however as the establishment violated the conditions as mentioned in the letter dated 16.7.2021 of the EPF Scheme, 1952, by letter dated 28.2.2017 the competent authority withdrew the relaxation granted. Further the establishment was directed to transfer the past accumulation within 10 days of receipt of the order dated 8.2.2017 and to submit a statement of the same in accordance with the provisions of paragraph no. 28 of the EPF Scheme, 1952. The Secretary of the trust submitted the past accumulation statement as on 28.2.2017 with their letter dated 3.7.2018 according to which Rs. 5,14,24,723/-was payable to the EPFO, Patna. Out of the aforesaid amount Rs. 1,61,50,120/-relates to employer’s share while Rs. 3,52,74,603/-relates to the employees share. It was further stated that till date only Rs. 2,50,34,204/-has been recovered from the establishment and an amount of Rs. 2,63,90,519/-in respect of 224 employees as on 28.2.2017 i.e. the date the relaxation was withdrawn, is still due. It was stated that the office is regularly receiving complaints from the employees of the establishment of payment of EPF benefits. Consequent to withdrawal of the relaxation, the management of SINTRA Ltd was liable to transfer the total EPF accumulation of the employees as on 28.2.2017 as per past accumulation statement against whom the provident fund contribution was deducted. It was stated that since the establishment failed to deposit/transfer the dues amount of Rs. 2,63,96,519/-in accordance with the provisions of the EPF Scheme, 1952, it appeared that the management of SINTRA Ltd and its provident fund trust has misappropriated the provident fund contribution of their employees and thereby they have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust as provided in Explanation-1 of section 405 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The Enforcement Officer, Regional Office, EPFO by his letter dated 16.7.2021 requested that an FIR be lodged against the petitioners for misappropriation of the provident fund contribution of their employees. Accordingly the FIR as stated above was registered against the petitioners.

4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that from perusal of the allegations as leveled in the FIR it would transpire that no specific allegation has been made against the petitioners. The so-called establishment or the Company of which the petitioners were merely employees have not been made accused. None of the petitioners were holding the office at any time as In-charge or controlling Director and or as Executive Director or Managing Director of the company. The company had become non-functional since 2016. The petitioner no. 1 of Cr.W.J.C no. 868 of 2021 was appointed as Additional Director of the company on 23.11.2017 and he retired as Director on 31.12.2020. The petitio

      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