Criminal Revision No.921 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.921 of 2003 Date of Decision: 4.2.2011. Vidya Sagar & another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the complainant. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Petitioner was tried under Section 85(a) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') by Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh in complaint case titled Employee's State Insurance Corporation vs. Vidya Sagar Jindal- Proprietor. By judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 15th, 1999 petitioner was convicted under Section 85(a) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehagarh Sahib. The Additional Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated April 21st, 2003 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. During pendency of appeal, a scheme by the name of Amnesty Scheme for withdrawal of criminal cases against insured persons and employers filed under Section 84 and 85 of the Criminal Revision No.921 of 2003 2 Employees State Insurance Act, was formulated by Employees State Insurance Corporation, Chandigarh. According to the scheme, the prosecution filed against employers/insured persons under Section 84 and 85 of the Act was to be considered for withdrawal and they could be granted amnesty. Taking benefit of the scheme, the petitioner applied for amnesty and by letter dated July 31st, 2000 (Annexure P-5) of the Employees State Corporation, the application of the petitioner was accepted. In view of this, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated no case is made out against the petitioner. This plea was raised before the Additional Sessions Judge but the same was not considered because the scheme was introduced in the year 2000 and the petitioner was convicted prior thereto, that is, on November 15th, 1999. 4. Similar point arose for consideration before this Court in Joginder Pal vs. State of Punjab and another Criminal Misc. No.49189-M of 2003 decided on December 8 th , 2008 (Annexure P-6). In that case, referring to the earlier judgment of this Court, Bant Singh vs. State of Punjab 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 172, it was observed that an appeal is continuation of trial. In Joginder Pal's case (supra) also, the conviction was imposed on November 15th, 1999, that is, prior to the introduction of the Amnesty scheme and the appeal was pending before the Sessions Judge but this Court quashed the complaint in view of the Amnesty granted to the accused. The amount which the petitioner was supposed to deposit with ESI has been paid by him. 5. In view of above, this Court accepts the revision and sets-aside the orders passed by the Courts below. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 4.2.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE