Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed unless no prima facie case exists against the accused, as established in the Employees' State Insurance Act.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three Criminal Petitions. Also heard Mr. M. Smith, learned counsel for the respondent Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short ‘the ESIC’).

2. The Criminal Petition No.698/2014 is filed under Section 482, read with Sections 401/397 of the CrPC, challenging the legality and validity and/or maintainability of the proceedings of Complaint Case No.18^C/2013, under Section 85(a) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in Short ‘the Act of 1948’), pending in the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

The Criminal Petition No.699/2014 is filed under Section 482, read with Sections 401/397 of the CrPC, challenging the legality and validity and/or maintainability of the proceedings of Complaint Case No.794^C/2013, under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948, pending in the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

The Criminal Petition No.702/2014 is filed under Section 482, read with Sections 401/397 of the CrPC, challenging the legality and validity and/or maintainability of the proceedings of Complaint Case No.1508^C/2013, under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948, pending in the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner No.1 in all the three petitions is the proprietor/Principal Employer who set up and run the saw mills i.e. petitioner No.2 in all the three Criminal Petitions, by using timber as raw material. All these petitioners are running their respective saw mill under the license, which were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sadar Division, Agartala.

4. In Criminal Petition No.698/2014, as per the license, the number of employees was 9 (nine), Criminal Petition No.699/2014, as per the license, the number of employees was 7 (seven) and Criminal Petition No.702/2014, as per the license, the maximum number of employees was 6 to 9. The copy of the licenses are also annexed with the Criminal Petitions. The employees employed under the saw mills are also regularly paying their salary since the day of their joining or since the mill was set up by the petitioner No.1. But subsequently it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner No.1 of the respective saw mills about filing of the complaint by the respondent, under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948, in the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, with some nonexistent and baseless allegations against the petitioners. In the said complaint, the respondent had alleged that the petitioner No.1 being the principal employer had failed to pay the employees’ state insurance contribution within the stipulated time. All the complaint petitions are annexed with the preliminary survey report along with the observation slip, wherein it was shown that on the particular day of their inspection, there were 10 numbers of employees in the petitioner No.2 saw mill. The petitioner No.1 surprised to find in the observation slip wherein it was shown the number of employees as 10, though as per the license, the petitioner No.1 never employed 10 numbers of employees in their respective saw mills.

5. In Criminal Petition No.698/2014, the petitioner never employed more than 9 employees on any working day and it was never exceeded more than 9 employees in the saw mill of petitioner No.1. But surprisingly, the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Guwahati issued a show cause notice on 22.09.2012 to the petitioner No.1, followed by another show cause notice dated 23