CRIMINAL APPEAL No.14 OF 1993 (U/S) Appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.08.1992 passed in G.O. Case No. 22 of 1982 and 13 of 1982, Tr. No. 417 of 1992 by Sri B.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya. 1. SRI Y. SINGH, Provident Fund Inspector, in the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. …….. (Appellant) Versus 1. M/S KUMAR BONE MEAL(P)LTD. Tekari Road, Gaya. 2. Sri K.K. Singh, S/o Suryadeep Narain Singh. 3. Sri J.K. Singh, S/o Suryadeep Narain Singh. 4. Sri R.K. Singh, S/o Suryadeep Narain Singh. 5. Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/o Suryadeep Narain Singh. 6. Smt. Sail Singh, W/o Jai Kumar Singh. All residents of Maharani Road, P.S.-Kotwali. District-Gaya. ………(Respondents) ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Roy, Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the acquittal of the Opposite Parties passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in G.O. Case No. 22 of 1982 and 13 of 1982, Trial No. 417 of 1992 by which the learned Magistrate has held the trial of nine other cases i.e. 407 to 412 of 1992 and 415 and 416 of 1992 as not maintainable under Sections 14 (1A) and 14(2) of the EPF Act. It appears that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner made assessment of the dues of the accused company under Section 7A for the period - 2 - between 10/79 to 10/80 and assessed it to be Rs. 3469.45/- (Rupees Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Nine and Forty Five Paise Only) under different schemes. The accused company was directed to remit the dues on 24.02.1991 within fifteen days. The accused company allotted Code No. BR-3607 at the time of assessment on 11.02.1980. As per the Provident Fund Rules, admitted position is that the company is to make payments periodically after having been allotted a Code number which admittedly in this case was allotted on 11.02.1980. In altogether 22 complaints were filed all of which were amalgamated and tried in the same trial. The prosecution case is that the Opposite Parties failed to pay contributions under different schemes within the prescribed period and they were punishable under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2) of the EPF Act. The trial court has considered that non- payment of the dues before February 1980 could not have been done since the company had not been given a code by them. The trial court has further held that since the matter related to non-submission of contributions for a certain period 22 separate cases having been filed was totally without jurisdiction. Moreover, it held that there were two cases which had been separately held one in which the accused persons had been acquitted whereas in - 3 - the other they had been admonished. Once the trial court held that 22 cases should not have been separately filed and in fact they were the same, it held that the prosecution case was barred under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. since it related to one and the same offence. There is no dispute that in the two separate trials which were held the opposite parties were either acquitted or admonished and therefore in the same offence separate cases having been filed by the complainant was clearly an abuse of the processes of the Court even though they may have been technically distinct but having been committed for a continuing period the offence was one and the same. Under the circumstances, this court is also of the view that no further action should be taken against the Opposite Parties that the judgment of acquittal needs not interference. In the result, the appeal is dismissed for the reasons aforesaid. Patna High Court Dated 30th November, 2009 NAFR/Vikash. (Anjana Prakash, J.)