( 1 ) THESE 24 applications under section 482 of the Cr. PC are being disposed of by this common judgment and order since the facts are identical and the points of law are common.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1, a company in the name and style of M/s. Hotel dock Palace Private Limited and the petitioner No. 2, the Managing Director of this company have been prosecuted by the Regional Employees' Provident fund Commissioner-II, West Bengal for their failure to make deposit of the provident Fund dues, dues under the Employees' Per. sion Fund Scheme and under Insurance Scheme and submission of return within the period prescribed by the statute during the months from December, 2000 to March, 2005.

( 3 ) THE petitioners pray for quashing of all the proceedings on the ground that subsequent to the launching of the prosecution they have deposited the dues and since payments have already made, albeit belatedly, there is no point in continuing with the prosecution.

( 4 ) THE question, therefore, is whether criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners on account of their failure to deposit the provident fund dues (both of the employer and employee) and other dues on account of the Pension Scheme and Insurance Scheme and submission of return thereon can be quashed under section 482 of the Cr. PC on the ground of payment subsequent to launching of the prosecution. The question in other words is whether payment subsequent to the launching of the prosecution can be a lawful ground for quashing of the proceeding.

( 5 ) MR. Arijit Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adoni Cotton mills Limited and Ors. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. as reported in 1995 Supp. 4 SCC 580, a Division Bench decision of this Court in jasoda Glass and Silicate and Ors. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. as reported in 2002 (2) Cr. LJ 407, and two decisions of learned Single judge of the this Court one in Air Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. State of west Bengal and Anr. as reported in 2006 (1) C Cr. LR (Cal.) 616 and the other in Howrah Motor Company Limited and Ors. vs. Samir Kumar Das as reported in 2004 (4) CHN 291.

( 6 ) MR. Sandip Kumar De, learned Advocate appearing for the Regional provident Fund Commissioner placed a good number of decisions namely, a division Bench decision in Pranati Textiles and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. as reported in 1989 (1) CHN 173, Ginia Debi Agarwala vs. Provident fund Inspector and Ors. as reported in 2002 (2) CHN 550 and in order to establish his contention that the decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioners are inappropriate in the context of the facts and circumstances of the instant cases. Mr. De cited the decisions in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. AGM, Management Services Limited, 2006 (5) SCC 520, A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak and Anr. as reported in 1988 (2) SCC 602; Prokash Singh badal and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. as reported in 2007 (1) SCC 1.

( 7 ) LET us, therefore, discuss the relevant decisions cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners Mr. Arijit Chatterjee. The decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Adoni Cotton Mills (supra) case reveals that the Hon'ble supreme Court directed quashing of the proceedings initiated through some notices in connection with offence under sections 14 and 14a of the Employees' provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the 'act' ). In the case there was a default for a period of four months following which notices were given under the Act and on receipt of the notices the appellants therein filed writ petitions which were dismissed by the High Court and then during hearing of the civil appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court it transpired that the offences were committed some 15 years ago and two of the appellants died and during the pendency of the appeal the appellants deposited money along with furni

Click Here to Read the rest of this document