IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2497 of 2006() ------------------------- ST.2402/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------- SHYMOL MATHEW, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.MODERN BINDING WORKS, ANGAMALY, (RESIDING AT PALLIPATTUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O.). BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION, ANGAMALY. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.2497 of 2006. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010. O R D E R The first respondent is prosecuting the petitioner in ST.No.2402/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva, alleging offence under Section 85(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act with an allegation that the petitioner failed to produce the records for inspection pertaining to the period from 1.9.1998 to the date of closure of the factory run by the petitioner under the name and style M/s.Modern Binding Works. 2. The petitioner, inter-alia, contends in this petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. seeking order to quash the complaint that in the show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to produce the documents for the period from 1.4.2000 to the date of closure and that the prosecution for the non production of the documents prior to the date mentioned in Crl.M.C.No.2497 of 2006. 2 the notice is not sustainable. It was also alleged that the petitioner closed the premises with effect from 1.4.2000 and she is not at all liable to produce the documents. 3. Having heard either side, I find that there is no notice for production of the documents for the period before 1.4.2000. But, for that reason the petitioner cannot escape the prosecution because there is no material to show that the documents subsequent to 1.4.2000 were produced before the authorities concerned or that the factory was closed on 1.4.2000. It was also urged that the documents were lost and the petitioner is not in a position to produce the same. If it is a case where the documents were lost and the petitioner is unable to produce the same before the authorities, it is for her to appraise the trial court with sufficient reason, if any, and seek for mercy or leniency in sentence. Prima facie, there is failure on the side of the petitioner to produce the documents pertaining to the period from 1.4.2000 to the date of closure for which the Crl.M.C.No.2497 of 2006. 3 petitioner is liable to be prosecuted. Petitioner cannot escape prosecution on plea of loss of documents. I fail to find any reason to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court in exercise of the powers vested in this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the above circumstance, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is devoid of any merit. Accordingly it is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to urge her contentions before the trial court and seek appropriate relief. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE KVS/-