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

2016 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J
Sandhu Security Service – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-33248-2016



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

Default in depositing employees' statutory contributions constitutes criminal breach of trust under the penal code due to specific legislative explanations. This offence is distinct from regulatory penalties prescribed in labor laws; therefore, criminal prosecution is permissible independently without requiring the prior sanctions mandated by the special statutes.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 405, 406, 409 - Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 14, 14-AB, 14-AC - Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 75, 76, 85, 86 - Criminal Breach of Trust - Cognizance of Offence - Whether prosecution for criminal breach of trust under IPC is maintainable for default in statutory contributions despite existence of special statutes. (Paras 3-7, 14)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of offence - Special Statute vs. General Law - Explanation 1 and 2 to Section 405 IPC create a deeming fiction where default in payment of statutory contributions constitutes criminal breach of trust - Criminal prosecution under IPC for such default is distinct from penalties under special labor laws and does not require prior sanction from authorities prescribed under those labor laws. (Paras 15, 17-18)

(C) Double Jeopardy - The offences under the IPC and the special labor legislations are distinct with different ingredients, particularly the element of mens rea in IPC offences, thus precluding the application of the doctrine of double jeopardy. (Paras 13, 18-19)

Facts of the case:
A contractor engaged for manpower services was accused of failing to deposit statutory contributions for the employees despite receiving the amounts from the principal employer. The contractor sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that since special labor laws provide specific procedures and penal provisions for such defaults, the initiation of police proceedings for criminal breach of trust was an abuse of process.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the amendment to the penal code introduced a deeming fiction specifically addressing the default of statutory contributions. This creates a distinct offence of criminal breach of trust separate from the regulatory violations under labor statutes.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the criminal prosecution under the penal code for non-payment of statutory contributions is barred by the special procedures mandated in labor-related acts regarding cognizance and sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: The penal code acts as a general law that is supplemented by specific explanations regarding statutory contributions. Because the offences are distinct in their ingredients and the legislature intended for such defaults to be punishable as criminal breach of trust, the special statutes do not preempt the penal code in this instance, and no prior sanction is required for IPC offences.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. registration of fir for criminal breach of trust regarding statutory funds. (Para 1 , 2)
2. statutory requirements and jurisdictional competence under epf and esi acts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. conflict between special acts and indian penal code regarding maintainability of fir. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. interpretation of explanation 1 and 2 of section 405 ipc regarding mens rea and deeming fiction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. applicability of crpc and distinction between offences under special statutes and general penal law. (Para 19 , 20)
6. dismissal of quashing petition when prima facie ingredients of section 406 ipc are established. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.573 dated 10.12.2015, registered under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad 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, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (for short ‘DHBVN’), Faridabad, with the allegation that M/s Sandhu Security Services, SCO No. 45-46, First Floor, Office No. 105 Sector-11, Panchkula, was an approved contractor for providing skilled manpower under this Division on outsourcing basis w.e.f. 01.06.2009 to 31.05.2010 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 firm 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 firm through account payee cheques but firm 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 firm. The firm 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 termination of contract of this firm. The firm 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 M/s Sandhu Security Services, SCO No. 45-46, First Floor, Office No. 105 Sector-11, Panchkula under appropriate Sections of IPC and initiate proceedings against him. 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, petitioner is seeking the quashing of the FIR. It has been alleged that the FIR has been falsely registered against the petitioner with an ulterior motive to blackmail him. 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 provided in Section 39 of the said Act which is reproduced as below:-

“39. Contributions- (1) The contribution payable under this Act in respect of an employee shall comprise contribution payable by the employer (hereinafter referred to as the employer's contribution) and contribution payable by the employee (hereinafter referred to as the employee's contribu

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