IMPORTANT POINT
A person cannot be held liable for offences committed prior to their appointment, and proper sanction for prosecution is essential under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Prasad, J.

This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.06.2019, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad in E.P.F. Case No. 02 of 2012 (State through Inspector E.P.F. vs. M/s Dhanbad Nagar Nigam and Anr.), whereby the learned Court below has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. with observation that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge u/s 14(2) of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 and under Para 76(a)(d) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 against the petitioner.

2. The complaint case was filed by the O.P.No.2 on 20.09.2012 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad against the Dhanbad Nagar Nigam, Dhanbad and also against the petitioner for the alleged offence u/s 14(1A), 14(1B) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Para-76 (b) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 read with Sections 14(A), 14A(1), 14 AA of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 on the ground that the Employer failed to pay on account of the Family Pension Fund and the amount of Employees’ and Employer’s contribution for the month from January, 2011 till now, within 15 days of the close of each said month in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 A of the said Act and Para-9 & 10 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 & 38 (1) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with para-39 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and thereby committed the offence(s) punishable u/s 14(IA), 14(2) and 14A of the said Act read with para-76(d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

It is further stated that said sanction (in original) for the above prosecution granted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 14 C of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is enclosed herewith and it was further stated that while dealing with accused persons under Section 14 (IA) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the provisions of Section 14 A of the said Act may be taken notice of.

3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned for the petitioner, Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P., Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 12.6.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is submitted that the learned court below, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration that no case is made out against the petitioner under sections 14(2) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under Para 76 (a) (d) of the E.P.F. Scheme, 1952 and the learned Court has observed that sufficient material is on record to frame charge under Section 14(2) of the EPF and MP Act 1952 and under para – 76 (a) (d) of the EPF Scheme 1952, which is illegal and also contrary to the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the observation and direction as contained in the order dated 24.08.2016, passed by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 1246 of 2015 as well as contrary to the materials available on the record.

It is submitted that the learned court below failed to consider that petitioner has not contravened any provisions of the Act and no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 14(2) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and under para-76(a) and (d) of the EPF Scheme, 1952.

It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to consider that in terms of Section 14 AC of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, no sanction has been accorded for launching of present prosecution case as against the petitioner, rather, sanction was only accorded for prosecution of Emplo