State through M.P.Chourasia Vs M/S Harishchandra Vidya Mandir

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No. 26 of 2009

State through M.P. Chourasia, Inspector (Enforcement Officer), Employees’ Provident Fund Organization posted at present at Ranchi .... Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

M/s. Harishchandra Vidya Mandir at and PO-Kandra, Dist. Singhbhum West

¶5

Subhash Chandra Varshani, President of Harishchandra Vidya Mandir, resident of 41, Hazra Road, 5^th Floor, Dist. Kolkata

¶6

S.D. Singh, Honorary Secretary of Harishchandra Vidya Mandir at present Acting Manager of M/s. Seraikella Glass Works Ltd. at & PO Kandra Dist. Singhbhum (West) ... Opp. Parties

¶7

---------------

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Surabhi, Advocate

¶10

---------------

¶11

Order No.16 / 12^th March 2024

¶12

This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment delivered on 4^th December 2002 in C/2 Case No.128 of 1996 corresponding to Trial No.1098 of 2002.

¶13

The only ground urged in support of this Acquittal Appeal is the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Acquittal Appeal Nos.10 of 2006, 18 of 2006 and 19 of 2006. Mr. Yogendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only difference between this Acquittal Appeal and the aforementioned Acquittal Appeals is the period of default and, therefore, the present Acquittal Appeal deserves to be allowed. However, this Court is not inclined to accept this submission simply for the reason that a decision of the co-ordinate Bench shall be binding on another co-ordinate Bench only on a point of law adjudicated and decided by the previous co-ordinate Bench. Moreover, in criminal jurisprudence a case has no precedential value unless some point in law has been decided (refer, “Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.” (1955) 2 SCR 1140 ).

¶14

C/2 Case No.128 of 1996 renumbered as Trial No.1098 of 2002 was instituted against M/s. Harishchandra Vidya Mandir, Subhash Chandra Varshani, S.D. Singh and Sachidanand Prasad Singh. The accusations against them pertained to sections 14(1A)/14(1B) of the Employees’

¶15

2

¶16

Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and para 76D of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and section 14A, 14A(1) and 14AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The charge against the accused was that they did not discharge their duty on account of which liability for the period April 1989 to June 1989 was fastened on them. In the trial, three witnesses were examined. PW1 was the Clerk in the Provident Fund Commissioner’s office (in short, PFC office), PW2 was Senior Supervisor in the PFC office and PW3 was Assistant Accounts Officer there. To support the prosecution case against the accused persons, the prosecution report vide Ext.1 and the sanction order vide Ext.2 were laid in evidence.

¶17

The learned trial Judge held that no material was produced to establish who was the person responsible for the affairs of the institution under the Act during the time of alleged occurrence. The learned trial Judge further held that the document which was not signed by Subhash Chandra Varshani cannot be relied upon against him to hold that he was the person responsible for the conduct of business of the institution.

¶18

The learned trial Judge has held as under:

¶19

“9. For the reason discussed above and also considering the nature of evidence and also the judgment presented before me for consideration I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case against any of the accused in any of the section so charged and consequently they all are held not guilty and acquitted. They are also discharged from the liability of their respective bail bond and their sureties are also discharged.”

¶20

The High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal exercises the similar powers as are exercised while dealing with an appeal against conviction can re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion but the High Court must keep in mind that there are judicially evolve norms and guidelines when interference with a judgment of acquittal is permissible. In the first place, the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court raises a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and, secondly, wherever two views are possible the High Court shall be denuded of its powers to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Further, in a case of this nature where the Court is not satisfied that the prosecution has established the charge beyond all reasonable doubt, the High Court must not exercise its powers to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge.

¶21

In “Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. High Court of A.P.” (2013) 14

¶22

3

¶23

SCC 145 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶24

“25. This Court has time and again laid down parameters for interference by a superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.”

¶25

While so, this Court finds no merit in this Acquittal Appeal and accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No.26 of 2009 is dismissed.

¶26

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

¶27

R.K.

State through M.P.Chourasia v. M/S Harishchandra Vidya Mandir

Case brief

What is this about?

State through M.P.Chourasia v. M/S Harishchandra Vidya Mandir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Baba Transport Represented through Its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Singh Vs Ms Tata Steel Limited Purchase Department through Its General Manager

M/S Sital and Sons through One of Its Partners Jag Mohan Singh Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence

M/S Sital and Sons through One of Its Partners Jag Mohan Singh Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence

Sudharshan Satpathy and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Mohan Lal Soren And Ors. Vs Nano Murmu And Ors.

Naveen Anshu Vs the State of Jhakrhand and Ors.