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

2011 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-12160-2011 (O&M)



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 social security funds constitutes the distinct offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. This offence requires mens rea, exists independently of regulatory defaults under special statutes, and does not require prior administrative sanction for prosecution.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405, 406, 408, 420 - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 14, 14AA, 14AB, 14AC - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 39, 75, 76, 85, 86 - Criminal breach of trust - Employer's default in payment of deducted contributions - Whether sanction under special statutes is mandatory for prosecution under Section 406 IPC - Held, Explanation 1 and 2 to Section 405 IPC create a distinct offence of criminal breach of trust, independent of default offences under specific social security enactments - No sanction is required under special statutes for prosecuting an offence under Section 406 IPC, as ingredients (mens rea) are distinct. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 19, 21)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - When proceedings under general law and special statutes can co-exist - Offences under IPC and special acts involving deduction and misappropriation of employee contributions are distinct and different; hence, rule of double jeopardy is not applicable. (Paras 14, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC, alleging that they failed to deposit the provident fund and insurance contributions deducted from the wages of contractual employees, despite receiving specific payments for said heads from the employer/department. The petitioners contended that the special statutes governing these funds constitute a complete code, requiring prior sanction for prosecution and trial by specialized forums, thus barring the police from registering an FIR under the IPC.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the Parliament, by inserting Explanations to Section 405 of the IPC, consciously created a legal fiction whereby failure to deposit deducted contributions constitutes criminal breach of trust. This offence is distinct from the regulatory default offences under the Provident Fund and Insurance Acts, which do not necessarily require proof of mens rea. Consequently, the procedural requirements for prosecution under special Acts do not apply to the offence of criminal breach of trust under the IPC.

Issues: Whether the prosecution for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC is maintainable for the default in paying statutory social security contributions without obtaining prior sanction mandated by the special statutes, and whether such special statutes override the general criminal law.

Ratio Decidendi: The offence of misappropriation involving deducted employee contributions under the IPC is a separate and distinct offence from the technical defaults mentioned in special legislation. Because the IPC offence specifically requires proof of dishonest misappropriation (mens rea), which is not an ingredient in the special statutes, the procedural bars (like prior sanction) of the special Acts do not apply to the criminal breach of trust prosecution.

Result: Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed.

Table of Content
1. registration of fir based on contractual breach of epf/esi contributions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. special statutes (epf/esi act) vs. ipc regarding penal provisions and procedure. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments: applicability of section 406 ipc vs. special act procedures. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. explanation 1 & 2 of section 405 ipc allow concurrent prosecution for criminal breach of trust. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23)
5. judicial directives regarding charge framing and consistency of ipc sections. (Para 24 , 25)

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.524 dated 25.08.2010, registered under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani 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’), Bhiwani, 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 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.3,67,666/- and ESI amount of Rs.1,28,366/- 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 Ajay Sandhu son of Kulbir Singh resident of village and post office Kaoth Kalan, District & Tehsil Narnaud, District Hisar 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, petitioners are seeking the quashing of the FIR. It has been alleged that the FIR has been falsely registered against the petitioners 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

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