Dismissed

Enforcement Officer, Employees Pfo. v. M/S.Tvm Dist.Tourism Promotion Council

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022Crl.Rev.Pet/214/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by an Enforcement Officer challenging the discharge of accused. The petition was disposed of as infructuous, relying on a prior ruling dismissing a similar petition from the same complainant, emphasizing the long delay in raising the revision despite the 2006 discharge.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as infructuous without prejudice to the right to continue prosecution in other pending cases.

Enforcement Officer, Employees Pfo. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 214 OF 2007

¶6

[AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2006 IN C.C.NO.744/2003 ON THE FILE

¶7

OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III,

¶8

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM]

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.

¶13

SMT.T.N.GIRIJA SCEPF ORGANISATION

¶14

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶15

1 M/S.TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY THE SECRETARY.

¶16

2 G.R.JAYAKUMAR, SECRETARY

¶17

M/S. TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL,
KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT, 'SINDHOORAM,
TC- 17/2081(1), DR.PAI LANE, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12.

¶18

BY ADV SRI.D.KISHORE

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRL.RP No.214 of 2007 2

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Revision Petition is submitted by the
complainant in C.C. No.744/2003 on the file of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,
Thiruvananthapuram, who is the Enforcement
OfficerofEmployeesProvidentFund
Organizations. The aforesaid case was registered
on the basis of a complaint submitted by the
petitioner herein alleging that the respondents
failed to remit their pension fund contribution
for the period 07/2001 which fell due on
15/8/2001. The complaint was submitted in such
circumstances alleging commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 14(1B) of the
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
‘EPF Act’) r/w. Section 6-C of the said Act and
also under paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Employees
Pension Scheme, 1995.

¶23

CRL.RP No.214 of 2007 3

¶24

2.As per the order impugned in this case,

¶25

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram discharged the accused under
Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal

¶26

Procedure(Cr.PC).

¶27

3.Heard Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned

¶28

Standing Counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.D.Kishore, the learned counsel for the

¶29

respondents.

¶30

4.The basic issue involved in this case is

¶31

regarding the non payment of contribution under
the provisions of EPF Act. The learned

¶32

Magistrate discharged the accused persons mainly

¶33

taking note of the fact that, the 1st

¶34

respondent/1st accused is an organization run by

¶35

the Government of Kerala and the default in

¶36

payment of the contribution has occurred due to
financial crisis of the State Government. It was

¶37

also taken note of the fact that subsequently

¶38

CRL.RP No.214 of 2007 4

¶39

the entire contribution has been paid along with

¶40

penalty, though belatedly. The contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the
subsequent payment of the contribution would not
absolve the accused from the liability.

¶41

consideration, the learned counsel for the
respondents brought my attention to the order
passed by this Court in Crl.RP No.221/2007

¶42

wherein a similar Revision Petition filed

¶43

against the order of discharge passed in favour
of the respondents herein in respect of another
prosecution on the very same set of allegations.
In the aforesaid order, this Court had taken a
view that when two views are reasonably possible
from the very set of facts, it is not necessary
to entertain the revision to re-appreciate the
conclusions arrived at by the court below after
the expiry of 17 years. The aforesaid reasoning

¶44

CRL.RP No.214 of 2007 5

¶45

was adopted by this Court taking note of the
fact that, the accused persons were discharged
in the year, 2006 and the Revision Petitioner is
contesting the case even now.

¶46

6.It is discernible from the said order

¶47

that when the aforesaid view was expressed by

¶48

this Court, the learned counsel for the

¶49

petitioner submitted that the aforesaid case may
be dismissed as infructuous without prejudice to

¶50

the pending prosecution for the default in
payment of the contribution. Accordingly, the
aforesaid Revision Petition was dismissed. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
this Revision Petition can also be disposed of
in the said manner, taking note of the long
delay in the matter.

¶51

7.Apart from the above, it is discernible

¶52

from the order passed by the learned Magistrate
that, one of the reasons which prompted the

¶53

CRL.RP No.214 of 2007 6

¶54

learned Magistrate to discharge the accused is
by placing reliance upon the proviso to Section
14(1A) which exonerates the accused from the
punishment, if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he

¶55

exercised all due diligence to prevent the
commission of such offences. In this case, the
1st respondent establishment could not make the
payment due to financial crisis of the State
Government and later the amounts were paid. The
learned Magistrate has granted protection to the
accused on the basis of the said statutory
stipulation. As observed in the order passed by
this Court in Crl.RP No.221/2007 the aforesaid
view is a probable one and there are no reasons
in existence to interfere with the same.

¶56

However, since the learned counsel for the
petitioner made a submission to the effect that,
the matter can be dismissed as infructuous, this

¶57

CRL.RP No.214 of 2007 7

¶58

Revision Petition is dismissed without prejudice
to the right of the petitioner to continue the
prosecution in respect of other cases, if any,

¶59

pending before the trial court.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶62

pkk

Enforcement Officer, Employees Pfo. v. M/S.Tvm Dist.Tourism Promotion Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Enforcement Officer, Employees Pfo. v. M/S.Tvm Dist.Tourism Promotion Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Bank Limited Vs State of Kerala

Thadevus @ Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith @ Girish Vs State of Kerala

Anil, Vs State of Kerala

T. Moideen Vs State of Kerala