In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRA No.1219-SBA of 2004 Date of decision: 6.8.2008 Provident Fund Inspector ......Appellant Versus Balbir Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rajive Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.RPS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. **** JUDGMENT SABINA, J. Vide this judgment 12 appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 1219 to 1230-SBA of 2004 would be disposed of as all the appeals have arisen out of the similar orders passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala dated 13.1.2001. Complainant/appellant had filed complaints under Section 14-AA and 14(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity 'the Act') against the respondents as they had failed to pay provident fund contribution with regard to stipulated period mentioned in the complaints. After filing of complaints, accused/respondents were summoned and CRA No.1219-SB of 2004 { 2 } notice of substance of accusation were served upon them under Section 14-AA and 14 (A) of the Act on 18.4.1998. The accused/respondents did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was listed for pre-charge evidence of the complainant. On 13.1.2001 the case was fixed for appellant/complainant's evidence but he failed to put in appearance and the impugned order was passed, which is reproduced herein below:- “Case called several times, complainant is not present nor any person appeared on behalf of the complainant. The case is of the year 1991. It has become too old. It is already 11.10 A.M. No more wait is justified. Hence, the present case is dismissed for want of prosecution. File be consigned to record room.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the case had been dismissed for want of prosecution at 11.10 A.M. as it had become an old case. Appellant could not appear before the Court in time due to blockade on GT Road because of an accident. The absence of the appellant was neither intentional nor willful. Appellant had earlier been appearing before the Court on each and every date. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the appellant/complainant was not present on the date fixed before the trial Court for his evidence, the trial Court was left with no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint. CRA No.1219-SB of 2004 { 3 } As per Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if the summons has been issued on the complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the case had been called a number of times and complainant or any person on his behalf had failed to appear. Left with no other option, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. The case was fixed for pre-charge evidence of the complainant and, thus, the presence of the complainant was essential on the date fixed. Complainant was required to examine his witnesses. As such, the impugned orders do not call for any interference as the same do not suffer from the vice of illegality. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 06, 2008 anita