Dismissed¶¶45

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Sri S.M.Jamal and Another

Criminal Appeal (ESI) – Acquittal upheld

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Mar 2025CRLA/1074/2007

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ESIC Criminal Appeal No.1074 of 2007 dismissed by Andhra Pradesh High Court (K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J., 19.03.2025); acquittal under Section 85(a) and (e) ESI Act 1948 affirmed in effect; complainant failed to examine witnesses despite opportunities and reopening (Crl.MP 367/2006, costs Rs.750/-); appeal pending 18 years without service of notice on accused; no legal evidence of guilt; no grounds to interfere; assessment Rs.1,07,377/- under Section 45 ESI Act; CC 95/2005, III Addl. CMM Vijayawada; accused examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the Criminal Appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal of respondent No.1/accused intact, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal stand closed. ¶¶45

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Sri S.M.Jamal and Another — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the Criminal Appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal of respondent No.1/accused intact, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal stand closed.

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should entertain the Criminal Appeal preferred by the complainant-Corporation against the acquittal, given that it has remained pending for 18 years without service of notice on respondent No.1/accused. +1 more

¶¶44

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Appeal, as it has been pending for the past 18 years solely for service of notice on respondent No.1/accused and the appellant failed to serve notice till date.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

There is no legal evidence to prove the guilt of respondent No.1/accused for the charge levelled against him, the appellant/complainant having failed to produce its witnesses despite several opportunities during trial.

¶¶44

Key takeaways

The trial Court rightly acquitted respondent No.1/accused and there are no grounds for interference with the acquittal.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (ESI) — Acquittal upheld — Appeal dismissed for non-service of notice and want of evidence. The Employees State Insurance Corporation appealed against the judgment dated 20.11.2006 in CC No.95 of 2005 (III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada) acquitting respondent No.1/sole accused of the offence under Section 85(a) and (e) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, arising from alleged non-payment of contributions of Rs.1,07,377/- for 01.01.1996 to 31.10.2002. During trial the complainant failed to produce its witnesses despite several opportunities (including a reopening allowed on 13.04.2006 in Crl.MP No.367 of 2006 on payment of costs of Rs.750/-), whereupon its evidence was closed and the accused was acquitted. Before the High Court the appeal lay unprosecuted for 18 years as notice could not be served on the accused despite directions dated 22.09.2023, the Corporation reporting that neither the accused nor the establishment was traceable at the given address. Holding that there was no legal evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, that the trial Court rightly acquitted him, and that there were no grounds to interfere, the Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal.

¶1

[3327]

¶2

APHC010518992007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1074 OF 2007

¶8

Between:

¶9

Employees State Insurance Corporation, having its Sub-Regional Office, Vijayawada, rep. by its Inspector.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri S.M. Jamal and another

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶15

1.U.R.P. SRINIVAS

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶17

¶18

Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

¶20

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 20.11.2006, passed in CC No.95 of 2005 by the

¶21

learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, wherein respondent No.1 herein/sole accused was found not

¶22

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007

¶23

¶24

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 85(a) and (e) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for brevity ‘ESI Act’) and, accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charge.

¶25

The appellant herein/complainant filed a complaint against respondent No.1 herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act. Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant is a public servant being an Inspector in Sub-Regional Office of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. The accused, being the principal employer, failed to pay contribution covering the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.10.2002 within the stipulated time. After following the due process of law, the competent authority, by virtue of powers vested under Section 45 of the Act, issued assessment order on 30.09.2003 calling upon the accused to pay contributions to the extent of Rs.1,07,377/-. When the accused failed to submit the return of contributions in Form-6, the complainant-Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 06.03.2003 calling upon the accused to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. Hence, the complaint.

¶26

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007

¶27

¶28

The complaint was taken on file as CC No.95 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offence under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act, against the accused.

¶29

After appearance of the accused, the accused was examined under Section 239 CrPC and charge under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act was framed, contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶30

By his judgment, dated 20.11.2006, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainantCorporation preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

¶31

Heard. Perused the record.

¶32

A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that the complainant Corporation failed to examine any witness on its behalf. It is evident from a perusal of the record that the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2005 and the matter was posted for trial and summons were issued to LWs.1 to

¶33

Since then, the case underwent several adjournments. On

¶34

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007

¶35

¶36

14.11.2005, case was posted to 02.12.2005 as last chance for complainant’s side evidence. In spite of the same, the complainant failed to produce the witnesses on 02.12.2005, 30.12.2005 and 16.01.2006. On 16.01.2006, the evidence of the complainant was closed, as the complainant failed to produce the witnesses, and the case was posted for arguments. At this stage, on 21.02.2006, the complainant filed Crl.MP No.367 of 2006 for reopening of the case and the same was allowed on 13.04.2006 on payment of costs of Rs.750/-. Thereafter, the case underwent several adjournments and the complainant did not produce the witnesses on its behalf. Hence, the Court below closed the evidence of the complainant. In spite of giving several opportunities, the complainant failed to produce the witnesses in order to co-operate the Court for disposal of the case. In view of the said reasons, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the charge leveled against him and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge.

¶37

Against the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the complainant Corporation in the year 2007 and notice was taken out to respondent No.1/accused, but the same was not served on him so far. On 22.09.2023, Sri A.Eswar

¶38

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007

¶39

¶40

Sai, learned counsel, represented Sri U.R.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant was present. On that day, this Court directed the appellant to take personal notice to respondent No.1/ accused through registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service thereof in the Registry on or before 13.10.2023. Today, Sri V. Kalyana Chakravarthi, learned counsel, representing Sri URP Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted a copy of letter dated 21.11.2023, addressed by the complainant Corporation to them, stating that the notices on respondent No.1/accused were not served. As per the said letter, neither respondent No.1/accused nor the establishment was found in the given address.

¶41

A perusal of the material on record goes to show that despite the fact that several opportunities were given to the appellant/complainant to produce its witnesses, it failed to do so. In view of the said reason, the learned Magistrate closed the evidence on appellant/complainant side. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate held that there is no evidence to find the accused guilty and accordingly acquitted the accused of the charge levelled against it. Thereafter, the present appeal has been preferred in the year 2007. From 2007 onwards, the appellant

¶42

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007

¶43

¶44

herein/complainant Corporation could not serve notice on respondent No.1/accused in the present appeal. More so, the complainant Company failed to produce its witnesses to prove its case during trial of the case. This Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal, since the same is pending for the past 18 years for service of notice on respondent No.1/accused and the appellant failed to serve notice on respondent No.1/accused till date. Therefore, there is no legal evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent No.1/accused for the charge leveled against it. Considering the same, the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent No.1/accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶45

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶46

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶47

pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

¶48

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

¶49

Dated:19.03.2025 Nsr

¶50

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007

¶51

¶52

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶53

Criminal Appeal No.1074 of 2007

¶54

Dated:19.03.2025

¶55

Nsr

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 20.11.2006 in CC No.95 of 2005 whereby respondent No.1/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act and was acquitted of the said charge.¶¶30
learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada · 20.11.2006
Prior proceeding
Complaint by the complainant-Corporation (Inspector, ESIC Sub-Regional Office, Vijayawada) against respondent No.1/accused, the principal employer, for failure to pay ESI contributions for the period 01.01.1996 to 31.10.2002 within the stipulated time.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Competent authority, exercising powers under Section 45 of the ESI Act, issued assessment order dated 30.09.2003 calling upon the accused to pay contributions of Rs.1,07,377/-.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
On the accused failing to submit the return of contributions in Form-6, the Corporation issued show cause notice dated 06.03.2003 as to why he should not be prosecuted for non-compliance; thereafter the complaint was filed.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Complaint taken on file as CC No.95 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Accused examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (on 20.06.2005); charge under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act framed, read over and explained in Telugu; accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Despite summons to LWs.1 to 3 and repeated chances (last chance fixed on 14.11.2005 for 02.12.2005), the complainant failed to produce witnesses on 02.12.2005, 30.12.2005 and 16.01.2006; complainant's evidence closed on 16.01.2006 and case posted for arguments.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Complainant filed Crl.MP No.367 of 2006 (filed 21.02.2006) for reopening; allowed on 13.04.2006 on payment of costs of Rs.750/-; even thereafter witnesses were not produced and the evidence of the complainant was again closed.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Notice in the appeal could not be served on respondent No.1/accused since 2007; on 22.09.2023 the Court directed the appellant to take personal notice by registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service on or before 13.10.2023; on the hearing day counsel submitted a letter dated 21.11.2023 from the Corporation stating the notices were not served as neither the accused nor the establishment was found at the given address.¶¶40

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Sri S.M.Jamal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Sri S.M.Jamal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State rep. by its Duputy Superintendent of Police, Cbi., Vs D.Bhaskara Rao

W.Giridhar, Vs State ,rep by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I.

R.Kesavalu, (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

A.P. State Financial Coporation, Vizianagaram Branch, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of A.P. Vs Annapureddi Nagulu & 3 Others

The State of a.P., Rep by Pp., Vs Ulavala Venkateswara Rao and 3 Others