1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.712 OF 2011 (PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR//VS// M/S. KISANJI GIRADKAR POLYTECHNIC, UMRER & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 08, 2011. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the respondents/ accused. The Provident Fund Inspector, Nagpur-appellant herein, was the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.153 of 1996 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umrer. Respondents No.1 and 2 were prosecuted for committing offence punishable under Section 14-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The charges levelled against these respondents were that despite deducting the particular sums from the salary of the employees working with them, the respondents, with their own share/ contribution, did not deposit the same with the office of the complainant. In order to substantiate the charge P.W. 1 Narendra-Provident Fund Inspector was examined. The learned Magistrate in paragraph 8 of the judgment observed that : “.... The bare statement of P.W. 1 Narendra is not sufficient to hold accused no.2 responsible for the business of accused no.1. ….” 2 Accused No.2 was President of accused No. 1 Society. Whatever was expected of the respondents was fulfillment of the mandatory duties cast upon them under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. They complied with the provisions was the fact within the knowledge of the respondents and therefore, it cannot be the matter of evidence to be led by the complainant. I, therefore, find substance in this appeal. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. Appeal : ADMIT Call R & P. Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. JUDGE RR..