These Crl.M.Cs. are filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the Managing Director and Director respectively of the first accused company. The Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organization laid separate complaints against the accused alleging that they have committed default of payment of contribution to the Employees Provident Fund, under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the "EPF Act" for short), read with Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees' Pension Scheme 1995. Prosecution was initiated for offences punishable under sections 6A, 14(1A) and 14A of the above Act and Schemes thereunder, after issuing demand notices for different periods of default.

2. According to the petitioners herein, pursuant to the notice, entire amount including the penalty and fine payable was remitted. Hence, it was contended that the prosecution launched against them was not sustainable, in the light of the payment of the entire amount. It was further contended by the petitioners that, there was no break of PF coverage and, hence the employees were also not affected. It was contended that the prosecution will not survive in the light of payment of dues to the satisfaction of the PF authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate his contention, relied on the decisions reported in Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors, Provident Fund Inspector, Faridabad v. Jaipur Textile, Faridabad (AIR 1987 SC 1738) and that of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Jasoda Glass and Silicate and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others (2002 (3) LLN 1146), to contend that payment of the entire amounts due will wipe off the criminal liability and that the criminal proceedings initiated under the Act, Rules and Schemes can be quashed exercising the power under section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. In Adoni Cotton Mills Ltd.'s case (cited supra), notice for recovery of money due against the establishment covered under the EPF Act was issued. The proposed prosecution was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. When challenged, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, since the amounts due have been paid to the satisfaction of the P.F Commissioner, the proceedings for prosecution initiated by the impugned notice was liable to be quashed.

5. In Provident Fund Inspector, Faridabad v. Jaipur Textile, Faridabad's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to deal with an identical situation and had quashed the prosecution initiated under the EPF Act on the ground of payment of arrears.

6. Both the above decisions were referred to by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Jasoda Glass and Silicate and others' case (cited supra). After elaborate consideration of the various decisions, the Court concluded that, in the light of payment of arrears, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the accused and hence, directions were given to the parties to file details regarding the payment before the court below and directed the learned Magistrate to drop the proceedings, if it was satisfied that the payments were duly made.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Provident Fund Organization, on the other hand, contended that the decisions referred to above by the learned counsel for the accused do not lay down the legal proposition that in the event of discharge of the liability due, the prosecution will not survive. It was also contended that, the above three decisions were rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and do not lay down the law on the subject. The learned counsel on the other hand, relied on the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Pranati Textiles and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Anr., (1989 Crl.LJ 1804), Anjuman Tea Company Ltd. And Ors. V. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2008 (1) CHN 1061) and Hotel Dock Palaces Pvt. Ltd. And Ar. V.State of West Bengal and Anr., (2007 (113)