SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J
Surender Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-26803-2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.N. Lohan, J.S. Maanipur, Harpreet Kaur
For the Respondents: Vasundhara Dalal Anand

Default by an employer in depositing deducted employee contributions to provident or insurance funds constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 405/406 IPC. These IPC proceedings are distinct from and independent of statutory penalties under labour laws, requiring no prior sanction for prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 14, 14-AA, 14-AB and 14-AC - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 39, 75, 76, 85 and 86 - Criminal breach of trust - Employer's failure to deposit employee contribution - Applicability of special statutes vs general penal laws. (Paras 3-7, 16-17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Offence under Section 406 IPC and offences under special statutes are distinct - Mens rea is essential for criminal breach of trust under IPC while not mandatory for statutory defaults under special acts - No double jeopardy violation. (Paras 14, 19-20)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, as contractors for manpower supply, were accused of deducting provident fund and insurance contributions from workers' wages but failing to deposit the same with relevant authorities, leading to allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the explanation to Section 405 IPC creates a deeming fiction where default in payment of deducted contributions constitutes criminal breach of trust. Statutory defaults under special labour acts and the offence of criminal breach of trust under IPC are distinct, hence proceedings can run concurrently.

Issues: Whether the registration of an FIR for criminal breach of trust is barred by the existence of special statutes providing for penalties and adjudication by specialized tribunals; whether concurrent proceedings result in double jeopardy.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution under Section 406 IPC for misappropriation of employee contributions is independent and does not require prior sanction from special statutory authorities, as the ingredients of the offence are distinct from those constituting simple statutory default under labour laws.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegation of criminal breach of trust regarding epf and esi contributions by an outsourcing contractor. (Para 1 , 2 , 11)
2. petitioner argues prosecution should be restricted to special statutes (esi/epf acts) and that fir constitutes abuse of process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13)
3. state contends ipc offences remain valid alongside special enactments due to distinct ingredients and mens rea requirements. (Para 10 , 14)
4. section 405 ipc (explanations 1 and 2) creates a distinct offence of criminal breach of trust regarding statutory contributions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. independent prosecution under ipc is maintainable concurrently with proceedings under esi/epf acts, justifying dismissal of quashing petition. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of F.I.R. No.82 dated 01.02.2011, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, and also for quashing the charge dated 08.09.2011 and 10.03.2012 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint given to the police by the Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (for short ‘HVPNL’), Karnal, with the allegation that M/s Shree Enterprises, SCO No. 16, Faridabad, was an approved contractor for providing skilled manpower under this Division on outsourcing basis w.e.f. 01.06.2010 to 31.03.2011, and accordingly, work orders were placed on a monthly basis for the supply of requisite manpower at various substations. The payment is regulated by multiplying the number of manpower provided by the contractor with approved DC rates, applicable Employee Provident Fund (for short ‘EPF’) plus Employee State Insurance (for short ‘ESI’) plus service tax plus zero percent premium thereon. All the payments including EPF/ESI have been made to the contractor through account payee cheques but contractor has neither deposited the entire amount of EPF (both employer and employee share) and ESI (both employer and employee share) with the concerned authorities nor he has provided the contract labour with the mandatory EPF and ESI cards which was obligatory on the part of contract. The contractor has, thus, dishonestly misappropriated the EPF and ESI amounts paid to him and has also committed breach of trust. The contractor’s employees working under the proprietor have not been paid the EPF amounts even after the lapse of 18 months of termination of contract of this contractor. The embezzlement of EPF amount of Rs.3,82,603 /- and ESI amount of Rs.97,103/- was made by the contractor which shows that contractor has not deposited the exact amount with the EPF/ESI authorities and has embezzled the same. Accordingly, a prayer was made to investigate the matter after lodging the FIR against Surender Kaushik son of Om Parkash Kaushik, Satbir Singh s/o Musudi Ram resident of village Kaoth Kalan, Tehsil Narnaud, District Hisar under appropriate Sections of IPC and initiate proceedings against them. After registration of FIR, matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, final report has been presented in the Court for trial.

3. By way of present petition, petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR. It has been alleged that the FIR has been falsely registered against the petitioners with an ulterior motive to blackmail them. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that it is a case of violation of provisions of Section 39(5a) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘ESI Act’) according to which if the contribution payable under this Act is not paid by the principal employer on the date on which such contribution was due, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rates as may be specified in the regulations till the date of actual payment as has been pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top