( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2000 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai-13. .. Applicant Versus 1. Damodar S.Mudaliar Prop.M/s.My Home Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2. M/s.My Home Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 3. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.104 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2000 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai-13. .. Applicant Versus 1. Shri.K.S. Dayama Prop.M/s.Ambernath Transformers & Electricals 2. M/s.Ambernath Transformers & Electricals 3. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.H.V.Mehta for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served. ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2000 ( 2 ) WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2000 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai-13. .. Applicant Versus 1. Smt.Manjula P. Sharma, Prop.M/s.Balaji Enterprises 2. M/s.Balaji Enterprises 3. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.H.V.Mehta for the applicant. Mr.H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 6th June, 2008. DATED : 6th June, 2008. DATED : 6th June, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- 1. These revisions can be disposed off by a common order as the point involved therein is common. 2. The applicant in each of the revisions is the Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai responsible for looking after the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation within the town of Mumbai. Apart from this, the State of Maharashtra is formal respondent. The other respondents are the organisations which carry on the commercial activities in the Greater Bombay i.e. a partnership firm or proprietor or a company. The partners, directors, proprietors have been joined as party respondents. The factual details such as the criminal cases filed against the ( 3 ) companies/partners etc. and the dates may vary but the principle on the basis of which these revisions are being decided would be common. It is in these circumstances, specific names of the parties or actual number of cases are not being mentioned in the body of the judgement as that may not be necessary. 3. It is seen that the present applicant, namely, the Regional Director, E.S.I. filed complaint against the respective respondents in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai alleging therein that the respective respondents have committed an offence under Section 85(a) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It was alleged in the complaint that necessary payment towards the contribution under the said Act is not made by the respective employers though appropriate amounts have been deducted in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It is seen that the respective accused appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Judge) and attended the respective cases. The respective accused after the judgement of the Supreme Court in common causes case filed separate applications praying for dismissal of the complaint contending that the respective accused ( 4 ) should get the benefit of the judgement of the Supreme Court in common causes case. Those applications were heard and decided by the learned Trial Judge and the learned Trial Judge had granted those applications and discharged the respective accused. Those orders passed in the respective cases have been challenged by the applicant in each of the aforesaid revisions. 4. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr.Mehta appearing on behalf of the applicant. I have heard the learned A.P.P. Mr.Saste appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra in the matters in which he has been instructed to appear. Similarly, I have heard the learned A.P.P. Mr.Dedhia appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra in the applications wherein he was instructed to appear. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respective respondents though they have been duly served. 5. The learned Advocate Mr.Mehta appearing on behalf of the applicant pointed out to this Court that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the common causes case came to be reviewed and the Supreme Court in the case of P.Ramchandrarao v/s. State of P.Ramchandrarao v/s. State of P.Ramchandrarao v/s. State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 Karnataka AIR 2002 SC 1856 came to the conclusion that the judgement of common causes case is no longer good law. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta submitted that the ( 5 ) aforesaid revision applications were filed prior to 16.4.2002 i.e. the date on which the judgement in the case of P.Ramchandrarao (supra) P.Ramchandrarao (supra) P.Ramchandrarao (supra) was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta had pointed out that this goes to show that the date on which the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered the judgement in the case of P.Ramchandrarao (supra) P.Ramchandrarao (supra) P.Ramchandrarao (supra), the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Judge in the respective cases had not attained the finality. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta had submitted that as a result of the aforesaid developments, the respective impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Judge in each of the cases are required to be set aside and the respective cases are required to be restored to the file of the learned Trial Judge for decisions on merits. 6. Mr.Mehta in support of the aforesaid submissions relied upon the judgement of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.244 of 2001 in the case of Chandrakant Surve v/s. Naresh Behari and Chandrakant Surve v/s. Naresh Behari and Chandrakant Surve v/s. Naresh Behari and others. others. others. Mr.Mehta, therefore, submitted that this Court should pass an appropriate order so as to restore the respective complaints to the file of the learned Trial Judge. 7. After having gone through the judgement in ( 6 ) C.R.A.No.244 of 2001 in the case of Chandrakant Chandrakant Chandrakant (supra) (supra) (supra) as also after considering the point involved on account of the judgement in the case of P.Ramchandrarao (supra) P.Ramchandrarao (supra) P.Ramchandrarao (supra), the argument advanced by the learned Advocate Mr.Mehta is required to be accepted. On account of change in law the challenge put up by the applicant to the said order of discharge is required to be upheld and the argument advanced by the learned Advocate Mr.Mehta in each of the cases is required to be accepted. As a result of this, the impugned order in each of the case wherein the respondents-accused have been discharged will have to be set aside and the respective cases will have to be restored to the file of the learned Trial Judge for trial. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the aforesaid revision applications. Hence the order :- a) Each revision application as aforesaid is granted. b) Revision is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the respective revision application. The respective complaints in the aforesaid cases are restored to the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. ( 7 ) c) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai shall dispose off these complaints in accordance with the provisions of law. d) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai shall issue fresh summonses as per the provisions of law to secure the presence of the respondents-accused in the respective criminal cases which are being restored to the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai pursuant to this order. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, revision applications stand disposed off. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)