IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3254 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRRP.59/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.175/2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, KANNUR. BY ADV. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, EPF ORG. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.RIGID PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, MILL ROAD, P.O. VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR, PIN-670 010. 2. S.V. NASSAR, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.RIGID PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, P.O. VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR, PIN-670 010. 3. M. AHAMED, PARTNER, M/S.RIGID PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, P.O. VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR, PIN-670 010. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.E.K. NANDAKUMAR. R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 3385 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.MC.No. 3254 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANNUR AS STC NO.5560/2003. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C. NO.175/2004 IN THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANNUR, DATED 16/09/2006. ANNEXURE III COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7TH FEBRUARY, 2011 IN CRL.R.P. NO.59/2006 IN THE FILES OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.3254 & 3385 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 Order The Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund, Kannur who filed the complaints before JFCM Court-II, Kannur is the petitioner in these cases. The complaints were filed against the very same accused, namely, M/s.Rigid Plywood Industries (the first respondent in these cases) alleging that the 1st respondent/accused failed to remit employees' and employer's contribution and administrative charges. Notices were sent to the accused. The amounts were not paid within the time prescribed. Hence, the complaints were filed before the learned Magistrate. There were so many other cases also. The proceedings in some of the other cases were stayed and so the complainant was absent in these cases. Hence, the accused were discharged under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in these cases would submit that the impugned order cannot be sustained since an order of discharge under Section 245(2) can be passed only Crl.M.C.3254/11 & 3385/11 2 when the evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient to warrant a conviction and that the charge is groundless. According to the learned counsel, if at all, the case could have been disposed of only under Section 249 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the accused/1st respondent in these cases would submit that the amounts due were under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The amounts due were subsequently remitted by the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that the amounts were remitted only after the filing of the complaint. That is not disputed also. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, since default was committed, the mere fact that the entire dues were paid subsequent to the launching of the prosecution may not come to the rescue of the accused. However, since the accused/1st respondent has paid the entire dues, though subsequent to the filing of the complaint, I dispose of these cases by directing the accused/first respondent-company to remit Rs.1750/- in each case as the complainant had to incur the expenses for filing the complaints. If the said amount is not Crl.M.C.3254/11 & 3385/11 3 remitted within one month from today, the complainant is at liberty to move this court for appropriate reliefs. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.3254/11 & 3385/11 4