ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Hari Swarup, J.
Maidhan Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision filed against dismissal of complaint (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on prosecution validity under ipc (Para 3 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on distinct offences (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. revision outcome (Para 8) |
1. This revision has been filed against the order of the Sessions Judge by which he dismissed the applicants' revision.
2. A complaint was filed against the applicants for an offence under S.409 I.P.C. The allegations were that the accused being the employers had deducted from the wages of the complainant and the other workmen the amount which they were liable to contribute under the Employees' Provident Funds Act but had not deposited the same as required by law. It was alleged that the accused had misappropriated this amount and were accordingly liable to be punished for an offence under S.409 I.P.C.
3. The accused in the case filed an application praying that the prosecution be not continued as the same was barred by S.403 Criminal P.C. and also by the absence of sanction contemplated by Sub-Section (3) of S.14 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act . The contention of the accused was that on their committing default in making the deposit of the amounts dedu
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.