Dismissed

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/S. Sawantwadi Lunch Home

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026REVN/47/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision application filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation challenging an acquittal under Section 85(a) of the ESI Act. Finding no merit, the Court upheld the acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove the accused was the employer or establish trial ingredients.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision application was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S. Sawantwadi… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2026.01.29 19:47:56 +0530 Chitra Sonawane. 24-CRA-47-2008.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Criminal Revision Application No.47 of 2008

¶4

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhavan, NM Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400 013

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Sawantwadi Lunch-Home, 6, Radha Niwas, Kabootarkhana, Dadar (W), Mumbai - 400 028 2. State of Maharashtra

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

None for the applicant. None for respondent No.1. Ms RS Tendulkar, APP, for respondent No.2/ State.

¶10

Coram: R.N. Laddha, J. Date: 28 January 2026.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The present revision application calls into question the defensibility and legal sustainability of the judgment and order dated 20 April 2007, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, in CC No.99/E/2002, whereby the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 85(a) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ESI Act’).

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

28 January 2026

¶15

Chitra Sonawane. 24-CRA-47-2008.docx

¶16

When the matter was called out for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the applicant and respondent No.1. It is a settled position in law that, notwithstanding the absence of a party or his counsel, a criminal revision application cannot be dismissed in default and must be disposed of upon consideration of the merits. With the able assistance of the learned APP representing respondent No.2/State, I have perused the entire record and proceedings.

¶17

The case of the prosecution, as emerging from the complaint, is that the applicant had filed Criminal Case No. 99/E/2002 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, against respondent No.1 and its Manager (arrayed as original accused No.1, since deceased) for alleged non-payment of statutory contributions payable to the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation.

¶18

It is the prosecution’s contention that respondent No.1 is a factory duly covered under Section 2(12) of the ESI Act and was allotted Code No. 31-15403-112. It is further alleged that, in terms of Section 40 of the ESI Act, respondent No.1 was under a statutory obligation to pay contributions in respect of every employee, whether employed directly or through an immediate employer, comprising both the employees’ contribution and the employer’s contribution, at the rates

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

28 January 2026

¶21

Chitra Sonawane. 24-CRA-47-2008.docx

¶22

prescribed under Rule 31 of the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950. Such contributions were required to be paid within the time prescribed under Regulation 31 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950.

¶23

According to the prosecution, respondent No.1 failed to remit the requisite contributions for the wage periods ending July 2001, August 2001 and September 2001, which were payable on or before 21st August 2001, 21st September 2001 and 21st October 2001 respectively, aggregating to a sum of Rs.6,971/-.

¶24

It is alleged that by failing to pay the said contributions within the stipulated time, respondent No.1 violated the provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of the ESI Act read with Regulation 31 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 85(a) read with Section 85(1)(b) of the ESI Act.

¶25

It is further the case of the prosecution that, consequent upon such default, the Joint Director of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai, accorded sanction to prosecute respondent No.1, and pursuant to the said sanction, the present complaint came to be filed before the learned Magistrate.

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

28 January 2026

¶28

Chitra Sonawane. 24-CRA-47-2008.docx

¶29

During the trial, the prosecution examined only one witness, namely PW-1, Shri SR Rane, the Insurance Inspector. Except for the sanction order, no other documentary evidence was produced. After considering the material on record, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence and acquitted the accused. Dissatisfied, the applicant preferred the present revision application.

¶30

Upon a careful and circumspect perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds that the foundational burden cast upon the prosecution was to conclusively establish that respondent No.1 (original accused No.2) was the employer of accused No.1 during the relevant and disputed period and that they were statutorily liable to deposit the ESI contributions in accordance with law. It is manifest from the testimony of the sole prosecution witness, PW-1, that he admittedly did not conduct any personal inspection of respondent No.1’s premises. It can be gathered from the evidence of PW 1 that he neither verified the statutory records of the establishment nor possessed any personal knowledge regarding the management, control or operational affairs of respondent No.1. PW-1 was unable to depose, from his own knowledge, as to the precise role, designation, or legal

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

28 January 2026

¶33

Chitra Sonawane. 24-CRA-47-2008.docx

¶34

status of accused No.1 in relation to the said establishment. More importantly, the prosecution has failed to place on record any documentary evidence whatsoever; such as appointment letters, partnership deed, ownership records, statutory filings, or any other contemporaneous documents, to substantiate its assertion that accused No.1 was managing or controlling the day-to-day affairs of respondent No.1 or that he was the person responsible for ensuring payment of ESI contributions during the relevant period. In the absence of any cogent, credible, or reliable oral testimony, coupled with a complete lack of supporting documentary material, the prosecution has conspicuously failed to discharge its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that respondent No.1 was the employer with in the meaning of ESI Act or that he was legally accountable for the alleged non-payment of statutory contributions.

¶35

In such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused is well reasoned, based on the evidence on record, and calls for no interference.

¶36

[R.N. Laddha, J.]

¶37

Page 5 of 5

¶38

28 January 2026

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/S. Sawantwadi Lunch Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. M/S. Sawantwadi Lunch Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohanraj Jagannathan Reddy vs State of Maharashtra Through Kopri Police Station

Prakash Chintamani Nagle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya Gajanan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishorekumar Khanderao Pitale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhanraj Motiram Bachhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Spectra Connectronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pitamber Belai and Anr.