IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 572 of 1992 Date of Decision : March 17, 2010 Ram Bhagat Jain ....Petitioner Versus Employees' State Insurance Corporation .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. M.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 on the allegations that he failed to pay to the respondent-Corporation the contributions as required under Sections 39, 40(1) and 43 of the Act read with Regulation 31 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the period from the month of April, 1989 to the month of September, 1989 due on 21st of each of the following month specified under Schedule-I of the Act. Vide judgment and order dated 16/20.11.1991, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of Criminal Revision No. 572 of 1992 -2- payment of fine, to undergo further two months' rigorous imprisonment. The respondent-Corporation was held entitled for 50% of the amount out of the fine imposed upon the petitioner. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 20.8.1992 by upholding judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was taken into custody. He then filed the present revision, which was admitted on 21.8.1992 and the relief of bail was extended to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the learned lower Courts. However, he has submitted that the petitioner has been facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1990. When the present revision was filed by him, the petitioner was 60 years of age and this fact was so stated in para 7 of the grounds of revision. He is now about 80 years of age. In March 2004, the petitioner under-went by-pass surgery at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. In this regard, he has produced photocopy of the discharge summary issued by Dr. Raghvendra Gupta, Resident Doctor, which is taken on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner is practically bed ridden and is suffering from various old age ailments. Moreover, the contributions as required under Sections 39, 40(1) and 43 of the Act read with Regulation 31 have already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, lenient view Criminal Revision No. 572 of 1992 -3- be taken in the matter of sentence imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner was partner of M/s Ram Bhagat Jain & Sons, and despite knowing the various provisions of law which required him to pay the necessary contributions to the Corporation, he failed to do so and, thus, exposed himself to liability. For an offence under Section 85(a) of the Act, the law requires imposition of minimum sentence of one year and fine of Rs.10,000/-. However, the Court has been granted the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term after recording adequate and special reasons in its judgment. When the petitioner was heard by the trial Court on the quantum of sentence, he had stated that he was 60 years of age and was not a previous convict. At present he must be 80 years of age. As is clear from the discharge summary, referred to above, the petitioner had to undergo by-pass surgery in March 2004 on account of sustaining anterior wall myocardial infarction. The petitioner has been suffering the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 20 years. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, this Court finds that the present case calls for awarding sentence lesser than minimum sentence of one year. In addition, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his Criminal Revision No. 572 of 1992 -4- remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone by him. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the petitioner by the Courts below is, however, enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. In default thereof, the petitioner shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The respondent-Corporation shall be entitled to 50% of the amount out of the fine as enhanced by this Court. The petitioner is, however, granted time for a period period of three months from today so as to deposit the enhanced amount of fine with the trial Court. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S.MANN ) March 17, 2010 JUDGE satish