IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.7559, 7561, 7562, 7563, 7566, 7570, 7571, 7572 of 2009 Criminal Petition No.7559 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Criminal Petition No.7561 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Criminal Petition No.7562 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Criminal Petition No.7563 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Criminal Petition No.7566 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Criminal Petition No.7570 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Criminal Petition No.7571 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Criminal Petition No.7572 of 2009 Between: Y. Gopal Rao .. Petitioner AND Provident Fund Inspector, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri B.S. Sivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Reddy, learned standing counsel for Employees Provident Fund Organization and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. The petitioner and the respondents are common in all the petitions involving an identical question, and therefore, all the Criminal Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The Provident Fund Inspector prosecuted the employer of the third respondent, the Managing Director of the employer and the Personal Manager of the employer along with the petitioner for offences punishable under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, due to the failure to submit the monthly returns as prescribed by the statutory schemes. The Provident Fund Inspector alleged that the Managing Director, the Personal Manager and the petitioner were in charge of the Establishment during the relevant period and responsible for conduct of its business and are, therefore, liable to be prosecuted for the said contravention. The petitioner, who filed a copy of his pay slip to corroborate his claim that he is only an accountant in the organization not in charge of the employer or responsible for the conduct of its business, claimed that in the absence of those factors, he is not liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offence. The Inspection report filed by the Provident Fund Inspector itself is claimed by the petitioner to have shown the Managing Director alone as legally responsible for the state of affairs in the establishment. The learned standing counsel representing the complainant stated that the prosecution of the petitioner was due to the particulars furnished by the employer in form-5 A specifying the persons responsible for the conduct of its business and the same may not be an invention of the Provident Fund Inspector without any factual basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that subsequently the employer has submitted the monthly returns and what remains are only the consequences for the delayed submissions of the monthly returns only. If the monthly returns have been so submitted, though belatedly, it is clear that as lenient a view as possible can and has to be taken in this regard in the interests of justice and particularly in the case of the petitioner, who is only an accountant in the organization even if he were shown by the employer in Form-5 A as one of those who is to answer the statutory requirements on behalf of the employer. He need not be visited with any penalty, which jurisdiction the trial court can competently exercise under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the special statute. Quashing of the proceedings altogether even in respect of the petitioner would depend on the answer to the factual question about Form-5 A, which probe need not be done in this restricted and summary enquiry in view of the above factual situation. These Criminal Petitions are, therefore, disposed of accordingly directing the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to dispose of S.T.C.No.1561 of 2005, S.T.C.No.1562 of 2005, S.T.C.No.1563 of 2005, S.T.C.No.1559 of 2005, S.T.C.No.1563-A of 2005, S.T.C.No.1560 of 2005, S.T.C.No.1557 of 2005 and S.T.C.No.1558 of 2005 respectively on his file in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in this order. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2009 Ksn