Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), through its Deputy Regional Director, filed a criminal complaint under Section 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) against the respondents, who were partners and the firm M/s. Malhotra Automobiles, for non-production of records. The sanction to prosecute was granted by the Regional Director under Section 86(1) of the ESI Act on 05/03/1986. The complaint was filed in 1987. However, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint for default on 22/09/1993 due to the non-appearance of the complainant. The appellant challenged this dismissal order in the High Court. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent State, noting that none appeared for respondents 1 to 5 despite service. The court observed that the dismissal for default was not justified as the complainant had sufficient cause for non-appearance, and the matter involved public interest. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the complaint to the file of the Trial Court for disposal according to law. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21/03/2005.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Dismissal of Complaint for Default - Restoration - The appellant, ESI Corporation, filed a complaint under Section 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for non-production of records. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint for default on 22/09/1993 due to non-appearance of the complainant. The High Court held that the dismissal was not justified as the complainant had sufficient cause for non-appearance, and the matter involved public interest. The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was restored to the file of the Trial Court for disposal according to law. (Paras 1-4) B) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 85(g) - Offence of Non-Production of Records - The complaint was filed by the Insurance Inspector against the accused for non-compliance with Section 85(g) of the ESI Act. Sanction to prosecute was granted by the Regional Director under Section 86(1) of the ESI Act on 05/03/1986. The High Court emphasized the importance of such prosecutions in the public interest. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint for default due to non-appearance of the complainant, and whether the appeal against such dismissal should be allowed.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22/09/1993 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The complaint is restored to the file of the Trial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 21/03/2005. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the complaint according to law.
Law Points
- Dismissal of complaint for default can be set aside if sufficient cause is shown
- Public interest in prosecution under ESI Act
- Section 85(g) of ESI Act
- Section 86(1) of ESI Act
