Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Madan Mohan Jha – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the order of special court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument against special court's jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. counterargument on government agency role. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 4. interpretation of relevant legal provisions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. employer's fiduciary duties as statutory agent. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. petitioner's status as government agent. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. judgments cited by petitioner not applicable. (Para 17) |
| 8. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
1. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri (Special Court under Section 409, I.P.C.) dated May 16, 2023 in Special Case No. 10 of 2023.
2. By dint of the said order, the Special Court under Section 409, I.P.C has taken cognizance of offence of the present petitioner as alleged in the charge-sheet, under sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Arnab Sengupta has appeared for the petitioner. He has argued that, taking cognizance of an offence as above by a Special Court, alleged to have been committed by a private entity which is not a Government company
A private entity performing statutory financial duties may be subject to trial under special jurisdiction when acting as an agent of the Government.
The Special Court under the SC/ST Act can take cognizance of offences without prior commitment from a Magistrate and amendments have no retrospective effect unless expressly stated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mens rea and dishonest intention are essential for offenses under Sec. 409 of the IPC, and the proceedings cannot be continued against an ....
A director of a company cannot be held responsible for any act of the company who is the employer and is liable for depositing the employees' share of provident fund before the provident fund authori....
At the stage of framing charges, the court is required to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without delving into the probative value of the materia....
The Special Court retains jurisdiction to try offences under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 for actions occurring before the 2020 amendment, which excluded such offences from its jurisdiction....
The Special Judge's jurisdiction to try non-PC offences is contingent on PC Act charges being framed; if no charges are present, a Magistrate must preside over those IPC offences.
Prosecution under S.409 IPC is not barred by previous conviction under S.14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act as they constitute different offences.
Initiating criminal proceedings before the final adjudication of the dispute would be an abuse of the process of law. Criminal liability arises only after the failure to deposit the determined amount....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
