Dismissed

Nachatter Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2010CRM-M/288/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal in multiple criminal miscellaneous applications. The Court held that the matter was squarely covered by a co-ordinate Bench's earlier order dismissing similar appeals in connected cases against the same respondents.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is dismissed; no interference with the trial court's acquittal.

Nachatter Singh and Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.288-MA of 2010

¶2

#1#

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.M.No.288-MA of 2010

¶5

Date of decision: 26.7.2010.

¶6

The Provident Fund Inspector.

¶7

....................Petitioner.

¶8

vs.

¶9

Sh. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Another.

¶10

................Respondents.

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

¶12

Present: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶13

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

¶14

This order shall dispose of 17* miscellaneous applications seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar acquitting the accused-respondents in complaint(s) filed under para 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952(for short 1952 scheme) and para 3 & 4 and para 42(d) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995(for short 1995 scheme) read with Section 6A and 14(1A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952(for short 1952 Act), as common question of fact and law are involved in these applications. However, for the sake of convenience facts are being taken from Crl.

¶15

Crl.M.No.288-MA of 2010

¶16

#2#

¶17

Misc.No.288-MA of 2010.

¶18

Since the application has been filed after a delay of 1397 days hence an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay has also been filed.

¶19

Facts leading to the filing of the leave to appeal are that as per provisions of 1952 Act the respondents were required to pay employees' and employer's share of contribution to the Employees Provident Fund in respect of employees on their rolls together with administration charges for every month within 15 days of the closure of the month. However, inspite of various requests by the petitioner, respondents failed to pay the statutory dues detailed in the complaint.

¶20

Upon notice of the complaint, respondents put in appearance, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar vide impugned order dated 30.9.2005 acquitted the accused-respondents of the notice served upon them on the grounds (i) that the complaint was barred by limitation; (ii) the complaint was filed without prior sanction of the sanctioning authority to prosecute the respondents; and (iii) the complainant-Provident Fund Inspector was not competent to file the complaint. It was further found by the learned trial Court that the respondents had already paid the statutory dues prior to the sanction of prosecution.

¶21

At the time of hearing of the present application(s) the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was invited to the

¶22

#3#

¶23

Crl.M.No.288-MA of 2010

¶24

order dated 10.3.2010 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court whereby similar application(s) in connected cases against the respondents were dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that against the said order dated 10.3.2010 passed by this court, dismissing the connected cases, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal.

¶25

The order dated 10.3.2010 reads as under:-

¶26

“ There is an inordinate delay in filing of the appeal. For the reasons, specified by the counsel, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

The respondents have been acquitted by the trial court inter alia on the ground that the complaint was barred by time and that there was no proper sanction for launching prosecution. The respondents have also deposited the share of the company in the relevant account. The circumstances do not warrant interference on re-appreciation of evidence.

¶29

Dismissed. ”

¶30

In view of the above, I find that the present application(s) for leave to appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 10.3.2010 reproduced above and hence no interference is called for in the present application(s).

¶31

Accordingly, the present application(s) seeking leave to appeal is/are dismissed.

¶32

As regards the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, in my opinion no further

¶33

Crl.M.No.288-MA of 2010

¶34

#4#

¶35

orders are required to be passed thereon.

¶36

Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on the file of

¶37

connected applications.

¶38

26.7.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

¶39

*1. Crl. Misc.No.288-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶40

2. Crl. Misc.No.289-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶41

3. Crl. Misc.No.301-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶42

4. Crl. Misc.No.353-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶43

5. Crl. Misc.No.354-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶44

6. Crl. Misc.No.355-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶45

7. Crl. Misc.No.356-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶46

8. Crl. Misc.No.357-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶47

9. Crl. Misc.No.358-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶48

10. Crl. Misc.No.359-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶49

11. Crl. Misc.No.360-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶50

12. Crl. Misc.No.361-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶51

Crl.M.No.288-MA of 2010 #5#

¶52

13. Crl. Misc.No.363-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶53

14. Crl. Misc.No.364-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶54

15. Crl. Misc.No.365-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶55

16. Crl. Misc.No.366-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶56

17. Crl. Misc.No.367-MA of 2010 The Provident Fund Insp. Vs. Rajinder Singh Sodhi & Anr.

¶57

Nachatter Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachatter Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

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

Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Shiv Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Manjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dharminder Singh etc. Vs Ut of Chandigarh etc.

Dev Raj Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others

Baljit Singh Vs State of Haryana