IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 123 of 2001 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal -Vs-

M/s Sonodyne Television Company Limited & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Kr. Gupta For the Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Susrea Mitra Mr. Hamidul Haque Heard on : 09.01.2024, 09.05.2024, 05.09.2024 Judgment on : 22.04.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Case No.C-119 of 1996, thereby acquitting the appellant of the charge under Sections 14(1A), 14(2), 14A(1) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

2. Opposite party no.1 the company was covered under the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, opposite party no.2 being its Director, alleged to have been a person in charge of the said company, responsible for the conduct of its business, required to comply the provisions of the said Act and the scheme framed thereunder.

Contentiously opposite party no.2 being the employer failed to pay the contributions for the month of December, 1991 in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act along with administrative charges for the month of December, 1991 in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 38 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme 1952 and therefore committed offences under 14(1A), 14(2) read with 14A(1) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with paragraphs 76 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.

It was further alleged the opposite party no.2 was in-charge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company during the relevant period and had committed an offence under Section 14(1A) read with Section 14A(1) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. As such he was punishable under Section 14AA of the said Act.

3. The provisions of Section 14(1A) and also Section 14(1B) of the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provided as follows:-

“Section 14(1A) - An employer who contravenes, or makes default in complying with, the provisions of Section 6 or clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges, or paragraph 38 of the Scheme in so far as it relates to the payment of administrative charges, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, but—

a) which shall not be less than [one year and fine of ten thousand rupees in case of default in payment of the employees' contribution which has been deducted by the employer from the employees' wages.

b) which shall not be less than six months and a fine of five thousand rupees, in any other case.

Section 14(1B) – An employer who contravenes, or makes default in complying with, the provisions of Section 6C, or clause (a) of Sub-section (3A) of Section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year but which shall not be less than [six months and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term.”

4. The appellant further contended that an employer who contravened, or defaulted in complying with, the provisions of Section 6 or Clause (a) of Sub- section (3) of Section 17 in so far as it related to the payment of inspection charges, or para 38 of the scheme in so far as it related to the payment of administrative charges, should be punishable under Section 14(1A). As such complaint cases were initiated against the company as well as its director for non-payment of provident fund and allied dues within a stipul