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) 270

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-31511-2016



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

Default in depositing deducted employee contributions to statutory funds constitutes a distinct offence of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, which can be prosecuted independently from, and concurrently with, offences under special labour statutes without requiring the prior sanction stipulated in those special acts.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405 and 406 - Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 14, 14A, 14AB, 14AC - Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 39, 75, 76, 85, 86 - Criminal breach of trust - Criminal proceedings under IPC and special statutes - Scope of concurrent prosecution - Criminal breach of trust involving default in payment of statutory contributions by employer is a distinct offence from those under special labour statutes - Existence of deeming provisions in Explanations 1 and 2 to Section 405 IPC establishes mens rea for criminal breach of trust - Prosecution under Section 406 IPC does not require prior sanction mandated under special labour acts, as offences are distinct and carry different ingredients. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
An employer was accused of misappropriating funds meant for provident fund and state insurance contributions after deducting them from the wages of manpower provided under contract. The department concerned registered an FIR for criminal breach of trust and cheating. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, arguing that the special statutes governing these funds constitute a complete code and that prosecution without following the specific complaint procedure and sanction requirements specified in those acts was an abuse of process.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the penal provisions in the special acts do not preclude the invocation of the Indian Penal Code. The insertion of Explanations to Section 405 IPC by the legislature specifically targets the default in depositing deducted employee contributions, raising them to the level of criminal breach of trust. The court concluded that since the offences are legally distinct and the Indian Penal Code provisions apply to all offences, the proceedings under the Penal Code are maintainable.

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code for breach of trust can coexist with offences under special labour statutes, and whether the requirement of prior sanction under the special statutes applies to such IPC offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal intention behind amending Section 405 IPC was to treat the non-deposit of deducted employee contributions as a distinct, actionable offence of criminal breach of trust. Because the ingredients and requirements for the IPC offence differ from the regulatory offences under the special statutes, they are distinct, and concurrent proceedings do not violate principles against double jeopardy, nor is the sanction requirement of the special acts applicable to the IPC offence.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. registration of fir for alleged misappropriation of statutory dues by a contractor. (Para 1 , 2)
2. requirement of statutory sanction and special court authority for epf/esi/tax act offences. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. the official stance of the respondent (state) regarding prima facie evidence of embezzlement. (Para 9 , 10)
4. petitioner contention that epf/esi acts constitute a complete code excluding criminal prosecution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. interplay between section 405 ipc explanations and special statute penal provisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. offences under section 406 ipc are distinct from special act offenses; no double jeopardy. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. consistency of charges (406 vs 420 ipc) to be evaluated during trial. (Para 23 , 24)

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing of F.I.R. No.17 dated 07.01.2015, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon District Gurgaon 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, Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (for short ‘HVPNL’), Gurgaon, 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

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