Case Note & Summary
The appellant, C.K. Thapliyal, an Insurance Inspector of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), filed a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 46th I/c 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, in Case No. 412/ESIC/90, which acquitted respondent no. 1, Sakharam R. Dalvi, proprietor and occupier of M/s Prakash Industries, of the offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act). The respondent was covered under the ESI Act with Employer's Code No. BL/319550 and was obliged to pay contributions for wages paid to employees. Contributions for the wage periods of July 1989, August 1989, and September 1989 were due on or before 21.8.1989, 21.9.1989, and 21.10.1989 respectively under Sections 39 and 40 of the ESI Act read with Regulation 31 of the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950. The respondent defaulted in paying these contributions, and had previously been penalized in criminal cases Nos. 593/1989 and 594/1989 for similar defaults. A complaint was filed by the ESIC Inspector before the Metropolitan Magistrate. On 5.1.1996, the particulars of the offence were read over to the respondent, who pleaded not guilty. The case was fixed for recording evidence of the complainant, but evidence could not be completed within two years. The trial court, purportedly following directions of the High Court, acquitted the respondent solely on the ground of delay in completion of trial, without recording any evidence. The appellant contended that the acquittal was erroneous as the trial had not even commenced on merits. The High Court observed that the trial court had not considered the merits of the case and that the delay was not attributable to the complainant. The court noted that the offence under Section 85(1) is punishable with imprisonment up to one year, and the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC is one year, but the complaint was filed within time. The High Court held that the acquittal was unsustainable and set it aside, remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh trial in accordance with law, directing the parties to appear on 3.8.2015.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal - Section 85(1) of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - The appellant challenged acquittal of respondent for default in payment of ESI contributions for wage periods July, August, September 1989 - Trial court acquitted solely on ground that evidence could not be completed within two years from 5.1.1996 - Held that acquittal without considering merits is unsustainable; matter remanded for fresh trial (Paras 1-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Limitation - Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Offence under Section 85(1) ESI Act punishable with imprisonment up to one year - Limitation period of one year applies - Complaint filed within limitation as defaults occurred in 1989 and complaint was filed in 1990 - Trial court's reliance on delay erroneous (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent under Section 85(1) of the ESI Act by the trial court on the ground of delay in completion of trial is legally sustainable when the evidence of the complainant was not yet recorded.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 set aside. Case remanded to trial court for fresh trial in accordance with law. Parties directed to appear before trial court on 3.8.2015.
Law Points
- Section 85(1) of ESI Act creates strict liability for non-payment of contributions
- Section 468 CrPC limitation applies to offences punishable with imprisonment up to one year
- delay in trial does not automatically vitiate prosecution if evidence is yet to be recorded
