IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Shiv Kumar Kanoi, S/o. of Late Jaideo Prasad Kanoi and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, On the Complaint of the Fund Control Officer, Office of the Board of Trustees The Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund & Pension Fund Scheme and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 539 of 2011
Decided On : 15-05-2024
Criminal Breach of Trust - Provident Fund Contribution - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, Section 406/34 - Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund and Pension Fund Scheme and Direct Linked Insurance Fund Scheme Act, 1955, Section 7
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) and the consequent criminal proceedings filed against them for alleged non-deposit of Provident Fund contributions. The petitioners, as the Director and Manager of a tea company, had failed to deposit the Provident Fund contribution, leading to the filing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had indeed made the outstanding Provident Fund contribution, rendering the continuation of the criminal proceedings futile. The court also noted that the provisions of the special law, the Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund and Pension Fund Scheme and Direct Linked Insurance Fund Scheme Act, 1955, should have been invoked instead of the general law under the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-deposit of Provident Fund contributions, the applicability of the special law, and the mens rea (intent) of the petitioners in committing the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the special law governing Provident Fund contributions should take precedence over the general law, and the absence of mens rea on the part of the petitioners was a crucial factor in quashing the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings, allowing the criminal petition filed by the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This criminal petition has been registered on filing of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners, namely, 1. Shiv Kumar Kanoi and 2. Ranjit Kumar Nath praying for quashing of the First Information Report dated 27.09.2011 filed by one Nirmal Roy Choudhury, Fund Control Officer, Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund & Pension Fund Scheme, Karimganj before the Officer-In-Charge of Katigorah Police Station on the basis of which Katigorah Police Station Case No. 437/2011 was registered under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding which arose out of the aforesaid FIR.
3. It is pertinent to mention herein that by order dated 18.11.2011 passed by this court, the investigation of Katigorah Police Station Case No. 437/2011 was stayed by this court during the pendency of the instant criminal petition.
4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:-
ii. the petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of Craigpark Tea Estate, Cachar.
iii. the respondent No. 2, Nirmal Roy Choudhury, who is the Fund Control Officer, Office of the Board of Trustees of Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund and Pension Fund Scheme, Karimganj, Cachar had lodged an FIR on 27.09.2011 before the Officer-in-Charge of Katigorah Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that the employer of Craigpark Tea Estate (C/27) in the District of Cachar, Assam have failed to deposit the Provident Fund contribution amounting to Rs. 26,63,682.12 (Rupees Twenty six lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred and eighty two and twelve paise only) for the period with effect from 05.11.2006 to 05.02.2011 .
iv. It is alleged in the FIR that the employer of Craigpark Tea Estate have failed to deposit the collected Provident Fund contribution though it has been deducted from the wages of the workers.
v. It is also alleged that by not depositing the collected Provident Fund contribution and their matching contribution the employers of Craigpark Tea Estate have committed offence of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation and therefore a prayer has been made in the FIR to prosecute the present petitioners under Section 403/405/406/408/409 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that on 07.09.2010, the petitioner No. 2, who is the Manager of Craigpark Tea Estate, wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Office of the Board of Trustees, the Assam Tea Plantations Provident Fund and Pension Fund Scheme and Direct Linked Insurance Fund Scheme, Guwahati that due to unprecedented crisis faced by the Tea Estate for various reasons like falling price of the tea, rising cost of essential commodities like fuel, electricity, petroleum products etc. and due to the fact that garden has suffered from drought, uneven distribution of rainfall, the petitioners company could not deposit the contribution to Provident Fund in time and prayed for allowing the delayed deposit by the petitioners.
6. It is also submitted that in response to the aforesaid letter, the Secretary-cum-Provident Fund Commissioner, Board of Trustees allowed the petitioners company to deposit the arrear (uncovered) Provident Fund dues amounting to Rs. 22,17,890.02 (Rupees Twenty two lakhs seventeen thousand eight hundred ninety and two paise only) payable for the period from 05.11.2006 to 31.07.2010 in 24 monthly installments with effect
The special law governing Provident Fund contributions prevails over the general law, and the absence of mens rea can be a decisive factor in determining criminal liability.
Complaint was made because contributions of Provident Fund were not deposited with proper authority. Now, it is an admitted fact that money has already been deposited, though at a belated stage.
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 co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the FIR should not be quashed at the initial stage of the investigation unless it does not disclose a cognizable offence. The court emphasized....
A prosecution may be quashed when the defendant has rectified the underlying offense and pursuing charges serves no effective purpose.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.