Dismissed

K.Malla Reddy v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd. and Anr.

Telangana HC19 Mar 2024CRLRC/1741/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, confirming the conviction under Section 85-A of the ESI Act. The sentence of imprisonment was restricted to the period already undergone, while the fine was enhanced to Rs. 10,000, considering the long pendency of the case and the accused's readiness to produce records.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of imprisonment restricted to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000.

K.Malla Reddy Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

B*,j^{;si,'f" ,Il;'Ji#'3:?i'rl?:33:r%ir'P-tiiH3l*'?i'"";"A"#:i;1iil'J'YA'3} No.1741^{ot 2012'}

¶5

[^32ee]

¶6

rN rHE^{H|GHcouRrfSIrT*=^BHEoF TELANGANA}

¶7

TUESDAY,^{THE NINETEENTHDAYOF MARCH} '"'i;a'iHousnuo nno T*ENTY^FouR

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEE'V'VENUGOPAL}

¶10

CRIMIN

¶11

ALR^{EVISIONCASE NO:1741OF2012}

¶12

",,31il$i'5:#:'?:.?','.15id{fi:f:q:s}i::f$:31":ii:.i"#i}i 3;;";iih;^{Judicial First class Magistrate to trv (} Etriii"'^{i"otstrialTribunal-lat Hvderabad'}

¶13

Between:

¶14

K.Malla^{Reddv, t'9,,[3,.X#3f;b3o"& u"'n"ss'} o,n^R/o r^{LlG 45'} lG 45 AP IIC llc^co Co lo ny,^r IDA' Jeedimdetla'^{Hyderaoao - JUUuru'}

¶15

"'petitioner/Appellant

¶16

AND

¶17

1 THE STATE^{OF A P', Rep by Public Prosecutor'HighCourt of Andhra} Pradesh,^HYderabad'

¶18

E.S.l having^{its Regional.officeat 5-9-23Hill fort Road' Adarshnagar'}

¶19

2 'nr';"irij.i";ptd^"by its lnsurance^{lnspector (Legal)'}

¶20

..'ResPondents

¶21

I.A. N^{O:1OF 2012(CRLRCMP.NOt2662 oF 20 121}

¶22

Petition^{under Section'151CPC Praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in suPPort of the Petition'the HighCourtmaY be Pleased to} susp end^{the sentencebYenlargingthe Petitioner on bail bY imPosing} dt.22.8.2012^{conditions,in} pending disposal^{of therevision Petition against the sentence} P.C.No.^{47 of 2008 on the file of the court ofJudicial First ClassIMagistrateto trY} offences^{under ESI Act,1948 and Chairman'lndustrial Tribunal-lat Hyderabad}

¶23

r,./^{Counsel for the p: titioner} ; Ms.^p Suhasini Recldy, Amir;us Curi,re Counsel for lhe R,:;p66dent No.1 : Sri Vizarath Ali, Assistarr{ Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Re rsirondent No.2 : Sri G R S Akhilesh rrlpresenling Sri Venkateshwarlu rjumnracav"elly

¶24

The Court macle thr tollowing: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'B^{LESRIJUSTICE E.v.VENuGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVI^{SIONcASE No.174LOF2012}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The^{presentCriminalRevision Case is filed by the} petitioner/^{accused seekingto set asidethe judgment dated} 22.08.2012^{in P'C'No'47 of 2OO8 passedbv the learned} Judicial^{Magistrate of First Classto Try Offences underESI} Industrial Tribunal-I, Act,^{1948-cum-Chairman'} Hyderabad'

¶29

of the^{case are thatthe} 2. The^brieffacts State Insurance^{Corporationfrled} complainant/^{EmPloYee s} the Petitioner/^{accused' who is} this comPlaint^against running^{the factory in the name and style of M/s' J'K'} Poles.Thesaidfactorywasbroughtunderthecoverageof and was^{allottedCode No'52-} ESI Act^{w.e.f 01-09-2001} comPliance^{under the Provisions} 2OI37-43^{to facilitatethe} of the^{ESI Act. The petitioner/accusedis the proprietorof} person-in-charge^{and was} the said^{factory and was} responsible^{for establishmentfor conductingthe business'} Accused^{being the principal employe-rof the factory failed}

¶30

2-9

¶31

EW,,I c"l.R. C.,Vo. 741 o.f 2012

¶32

to c. rn p, , with the provisions of the A .:t :rrcl failed to prodtrr:c !) tords for inspection. As per t.re dir.e ctions of Regional . :ir-ector a complaint was made unde,r l]:ction g5 (g) of llSL', 't numbered as p.C.No.36 of 2OO4 n h:rein the learne,:l C r rt found the accused guilty and rj€,rrt 3nced to pay a llnr: of Rs.2,OOO/_ with a direction to prorluce the relevarL I r(r,t )rds within one month from I he cle.t : of the judgmr:rt r, O5.O2.2OOg. However, the accusred ailed to produr::. tlr: records for inspection within thr: st pulated time.

¶33

Agqrir,,,'fl thereby, the complainant made a co aplaint under Sier:t r,r g5 A of the ESI Act in p.C.I,Jo.47 of 2008. The Inscecir:r of the ESI Corporation visited the lhctor_v on 02.06.2OAB r nd 09.O6.200g for inspection of rec()r.cs as per the orde,rsr :ri learned Judicial Magistrate of Firr;t Class to Try Offt:-Lce:; 'rnder the ESI Act_cum_Chairm.an, lndustrial Tribunal-l

¶34

Drr:inp1 the course of trial on bt'rfu211 cf the complair-rzLnt I)Ws. 1 and 2 were examined arrrj got ;:r arked

¶35

3-9

¶36

EW,J CrLR.C.No.7741^{of 2072}

¶37

Exs.P.1^{to P.8' On behalf of the defence'DWs'1 and 2 were} examined^{and got marked Ex Dl and D2'}

¶38

After^{appreciating the oral and documentaryevidence} on record,^{vide judgmentdated 22'O8'2012in P'C'No 47 of} 2008,^{the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence} punishable^{under Section85 A of the ESI Act and} sentenced^{him to undergo Simple Imprisonmentfor a} period of^{3 monthsand to pay a fine of Rs'3'000/-' in} default,^{to undergo simpleimprisonment for a period of one} month.

¶39

Aggrieved^{by which' the revisionpetitioner/accused} preferred^{the presentCriminalRevision Case' seeking to} set aside^{the Judgmentdated 22'08'2012 in P'C'No'47 of} 2OO8^{passedby the learned JudicialMagistrateof First} Class^{to Try Offencesunder ESI Act' 1948-cum-Chairman'} Industrial^{Tribunal-I, at Hyderabad'}

¶40

Heard Ms'^{P'Suhasini Reddy'IearnedAmicus} Curiae,^{rePresentingtherevlslon} petitioner/^accused; Mr. Khaja^{YizarathAli,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor}

4-9

I I f; fi h ti i I i

('rl.R C. No.1741 oJ 2OI2

¶45

¶46

reprosenr rq R1-State and Mr. G.R.S. .A.khile:sl , learned coLlnsr3_l r. r rresenting learned standing cc,unrie.l ,lppearing for re r;pon lcnt No.2_ESIC. perused the recr.,rd.

¶47

,-)r.l1 tq the course of hearing, learne<1 Arnic;r s Curiae appezL:i.r51 trr the petitioner/ accused contended LlLat when Inspe:tcr :,f the ESI Corporation visited thr, house ol, DW2, who is r.h, proprietor of M/s. J.K. poles, DW2 r,:quested time s t a.ti^- 6 that all the records are wi r-h hisi counsel Mr. V. lS jomayajulu and that though the Ir rspector informr:,C tlLrt he will visit J.K. poles, ht:, drd r ot visit J.K. Po r:..r ir,lin and, as such, there is no la:rse on he part of DWll ;n l.rr.rrdq6ing the records. Further, trW2 alrl rlied for availmr: n1 c^- amnesty scheme arrd hence, he r;91 116[ ,o1 produc: thr' '-ecords. There is no violation c f dir.r_-r:t ions of the Corrrl r,' l,: -iudgment dated OS.O2.2OOg in p.C.j\r.36 of 2004

¶48

It is flLr t-ier contended by Amicus Curiae tlLat r, ietter dated O:.11 l )10 was addressed by DW2 to thr: Rigional Director, Ilf: Corporation, Hyderabad, for availnrr:nt of amnesty s;crhi rle in p.C.No.47 of 20Og stating thar, he could

¶49

¶50

5-9

¶51

Ew,,t Crl.R.C.No'7747^{oJ 2Ol2}

¶52

not^{producethe recordsfor verification when the offrcials} visited^{the company for inspection,as he was out of station} for^{procuringorders to their companyand placeda} requisition^{for deputing Inspector for verifibationof records} and^{to sanction amnestyscheme in this case' It is further} contended^{that a letter dated 23'O6'20O8was submittedby} DW2^{stating that J'K' Poleswas closed as there was no job} work^{from Electricity Depa'rtment' which was duly} acknowledged^{bY the authoritY'}

¶53

lt^{is also contended that the trial Court erred in} convicting^{thepetitioner/accusedfor theoffence} punishable^{under Section 85-A of ESI Act in the absenceof} aly^{cogent and reliable evidence' She further contended} that^{the trial Court committed grave error in convicting the} petitioner/^{accused for the offencepunishable under} Section85-AofEslActthoughtherearecontradictions and omissions^{inthe evidence on record' She further} contended.^{that the trial Court erred in appreciating the} evidenceonrecordinproperperspective.Shefurther due to * - contended^{that this cas'*;rs pending f-or-a- l-?-tg} 'it"'

6-9

l :l

Ew,J t:rl.R.C, tio.IZ4t oj 2ot2 :. ;.

¶59

rvhich tl: petitioner/ accused suffered m ent,rJ a gony and haldsh ip c uring the course of litigation be;bre the trial Court as ,,.11 as this Court and that since rwr:lve (12) long years h;rrrr aiready been elapsed from the dar.e r . filing of this l-i.-r is;i r r. 56" prayed to take a lenient vicu. and allow the Criar.irr,rl Revision Case by setting asid:: tLe irrpugned judgmt:nt 1.^assed by the trial Court.

¶60

I1. On 1.r other hand, the learned Standi.el3 lounsel represt:rrtirrr the ESIC submits that the tri,al Cou;.t, after appreciittrn,. :he oral and documentaqr evid::nc(r, il /ailabie on riscor,:i in proper perspective, founc the petitionr: L-,i;Llr used guilty for the offence pun ishabie under Section tlli,,1 ol ESI Act and, accordingly, r:onvic.,r d ald sentenc:<l h ,rr lor the said offence. He, furth er :onr ended that the rre,tr'.i<,ner failed to produce the relevant recrr;.ds for inspection ir spite of giving several opportunil_ies tr)Llr sllant to the rr.cler. ,:f the trial Court, which is nothin 1 but contempt .i ( 6 s11 and hence, lenient view ca.not rrr: taken in his frtlou : and sought for dismissal of [he (]ri minal

¶61

Revision l)i,.s'

¶62

7-9

¶63

Ew,J i;:LR.C'NI'1741^{oJ 2072}

¶64

¶65

t2.^{The learned AssistantPublic Prosecutorrepresenting} Rl-State^{also contended in line with standing'counsel for} R2-ESIC^{and prayed to d'ismissthe Revision'}

¶66

13.^{Upon a careful scrutiny of the material' it is evident} that^{in pursuantto the Judgment dated 05'O2'2008in} P.C.No.36^{of 2OO4'thepetitioner/ accused addressedletter} dated^{23'06'2O08for verification of registers by the} authorities^{ofR2-Corporation'The documentsunder} Exs.Dl^{and D2clearly show that the petitioneraddressed a} letter^{to theRegronalDirector' ESICorporatron'} Hyderabad,^{for availing amnesty scheme in P'C'No'47 of} 2008.^{Since, the petitioner was ready and willing to} produce^{the records for verification;this Court is of the} considered^{view thathe is entitledfor taking a lenient view'}

¶67

Having^{regard to the facts and circumstances of the} case, as^{the petitioner/accused sufferedmental agony and} hardship^{during the courseof litigationbefore the trial} Court and,^{as rightlycontendedby learned counsel for the} * -petitioner/ accused,^{sinee twelve long years have already} been elapsed^{from the date of frling of this Revision'this}

8-9

EW, * l:rl.R.C.No. lZ4l o.f 2012

¶73

Courl. t s r clined to take a lenient view rutd ac rordingiy, whilr c::,r firming the conviction inrpor;e:cl against petitioiter., z ccused for the offence punishetbi_- under Sectio.,:: gl: .\ of the ESI Act, the sentence ()f irnprjsonment imposr:d tx Ihe trial Court is restricted to tlrat ol.t_l e period alreadi' .,( .rgone by the pedtioner/accuserl.

¶74

¶75

15' lirlcor( rngly, while confirming the convicti,. r:corded against. thr: psfjtjensr/accused for the offence pur ishable under :iecl ;n B5_A of the ESI Act, tht, s(1111.€ nce of lmprtsonme t1 imposed on the petitioner/a<:cus,ed by the trial co -,rt ir; rnodified by restricting the same to ttral of the period irlr.eir j r. undergone by the petitic,ner/ ac :used. Hou,ever, thr: line of Rs.3,000/_ imposed b1 the [e arned trial Cour':, ;s r rhancecl to Rs.10,000 /, which shall b,: paid to the c.-:dit :l p.C.No.47 of 2O0g before th:: trra_l lourt within a oe rr-,c of three (3) months from the da:e o| this order, in rleta .rlt, to suffer simple imprisonment for. il p eriod of fifteen (J 5 c avs. Aforesaid fine amount of Rs.1l,(rOO/_ shall remir,r' ,' i h the State.

¶76

9-9

¶77

Ew,J CrLR,C,No'^{1747 ol2o72}

¶78

l 1 l

¶79

16.^{With the above said modification' the Criminal}

¶80

Revision^{Caseis dismissed'}

¶81

As a^{sequel,miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending} also^stand in this^{criminal revisioncase shall}

dismissed.

,ITRUE^COPY"

,3",i''tHS+Hka

,r"r,ofi..'"'*

To,

ADI(gh Q-

l , i i

HIGH COUFIT

DATED:19t0it2024

ORDER

CRLRC.N o.1';'41 of 2012

¶93

!
.-a '' irlf' SI,'q I (,, I
/,t,
/, (.) :
'za
l() Ii ]\ 1 025 -u)
{). +:t
x
I

¶94

DISMISSII{G I'HE CRLRC

¶95

€.,f"4 w ---( 7\r,i^fr

K.Malla Reddy v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Malla Reddy v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., H.C., Hyd. and Anr.

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

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Dubbaka Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P.

Smt P.Swarna Latha Vs Smt Chandrakala and Another

M.S.Malik and 3 Others Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Jangam Yellavva , Lachavva and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P.

Reddipally Srinu, Nalgonda District and 2 Others Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court of a.P.,Hyderabad