IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3248 of 2011() ------------------------------------- ST.NO.1335/2005 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS:-ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- SMT.PONMALAR ROOPKUMAR, NAGATHENA, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM.PIN-691 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. R1 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.SURESH,SC, EPF.ORGANISATION R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011,ALONG WITH CRMC NO.3592 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.3248/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22-7-2005 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 17/5/2005 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON 25/11/2009. ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/4/2010 IN ST.NO.1335 OF 2005 IN CMP.NO.11499 OF 2009. ANNEXURE 5: COPY OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DATED 19-7-2005 IN S.T.NO.1335 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.3248, 3592, 3593, 3594, 3595, 3596, 3597, 3600, 3601, 3602, 3603 & 3604 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2011 O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. In all these cases, the Enforcement Officer has filed a complaint against the firm which was represented by the Managing Partner and also against A2. The Managing Partner died subsequently. Thereafter, two persons were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased A1. 3. The petitioner herein is stated to be the daughter-in- law of Annai Jayabarathi. The learned counsel submits that simply because petitioner happened to be the daughter-in-law of the 2nd accused (who was the Managing Partner), the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the allegation in the complaint was against the deceased (second accused) who was stated to be the person in control of the management of the affairs of M/s.Rajvel & Co. That will falsify the present case that the petitioner, who Crl.M.C. Nos.3248, 3592, 3593, 3594, 3595, 3596, 3597, 3600, 3601, 3602, 3603 & 3604 of 2011 -: 2 :- is the daughter-in-law, is liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 14(1A) of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The learned counsel further submits that Section 8 of that Act enables an officer or organisation to realise the amount payable by recourse to attachment and sale of the movable and immovable properties of the company, firm etc. 4. In view of the fact that petitioner was impleaded only because she is the daughter-in-law of the original Managing Partner, the petitioner cannot be fastened with the criminal liability. Hence, the proceedings initiated against this petitioner in S.T.Nos.1335/2005, 1344/2005, 1343/2005, 1336/2005, 1337/2005, 1342/2005, 1350/2005, 1339/2005, 1351/2005, 1349/2005, 1338/2005 and 1345/2005 will stand quashed. These Crl.M.Cs. are allowed accordingly. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt