IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11895 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M/S.KERALA TILERY, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. 2. KUNJU MOIDEENKUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER, KERALA TILERY, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EPF ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-6. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-6. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. FOR R1 & R2 BY P.P.SRI.C.S.HRITICK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C). No.11895 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is a Tile Factory at Feroke, Kozhikkode and its Managing Partner. The 1st petitioner is an establishment brought under the purview of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. For the default committed by the said firm in the payment of Provident Fund dues for various periods and damages under Section 14B, prosecution under Section 14 (1A) and 14 A of the said Act was launched against the petitioners before the Court of J.F.C.M-V, Kozhikkode as S.T.Nos. 1378 and 1379 of 2005. The said prosecutions are pending before the court below. It is admitted that the particulars of the offence have not been read over to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, arrears of contributions have been subsequently remitted as evidenced by the Ext.P4, P6 and P9. Therefore, according to the petitioners the prosecution against them should be quashed. W.P(C). No.11895 of 2009 : 2 : 2. The petitioners would have it that subsequent remittance of the contributions and damages for periods prior to the period in question and for a portion of the period in question have already been cleared as evidenced by Ext.P4, P6 and P9. This according to the petitioners constitute adequate grounds for quashing the prosecution against them. 3. Subsequent remittance of the contributions and damages, if any, cannot wipe out the offences committed by the petitioners. Hence, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings pending before the court below. The remedy of the petitioners is to either make their submissions at the stage under Section 251 Cr.P.C, in the light of decision in Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala [2005 (3) KLT 617] or to plead for an acquittal after adducing sufficient evidence during the trial of the cases. Reserving the above right of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb