IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 of 2007 DATE:10.08.2010 Between: M/s.G.N.Products Pvt. Ltd. And another …… Appellants And: Employees State Insurance Corporation and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 of 2007 ORDER : This appeal is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 against the judgment dated 22.02.2007 passed by Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I- cum-Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for trial of offences under the Employees State Insurance Act, Hyderabad in P.C. No.122 of 2004 by which the lower Court found A-1 and A-2 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 85(a), 85(1)(a), (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act (in short, the Act) and convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 85(a) of the Act, to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 85(a) and 85(1)(a); and to fine of Rs.4,000/- each under Section 85(1)(e) of the Act. It is a case of non payment of contribution along with interest by A-1 and A-2 for the period from 6/03 to 9/03 to the tune of Rs.83,073/-. In the lower Court liability of A-1 and A-2 to remit the said amount to the complainant-corporation is not disputed. But it is contended that the accused paid the entire contributions along with interest covered by the complaint period. It is also stated that even for the subsequent period also the accused are continuing to pay amounts payable to the corporation. The lower Court observed that a lenient view was taken by it and accordingly imposed the above said sentences. 2) In this appeal, the appellants’ counsel placed reliance on Sreekantadatta P.S V. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation[1] of the Supreme Court and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation V. Ramalingeswara Pulvarising Mills[2] of this Court and contended that the corporation introduced a scheme called Amnesty Scheme for withdrawal of criminal cases against the insured persons and employees filed under Sections 84 and 85 of the Act respectively and that the appellants should be pushed through that scheme. The appellants did not produce the said scheme before this Court in order to find out terms of the scheme and whether the said scheme is applicable to facts of the present case. In the absence of the said scheme filed before this Court or before the lower Court, it cannot be said that this Court can apply that scheme to this case. 3) The appellants’ counsel further contended that though minimum imprisonment is prescribed under Section 85(1)(a) of the Act, proviso appended to it gives discretion for the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment. The lower Court took note of payment of the contribution and interest covered by the case and imposed lesser imprisonment than the minimum sentence of imprisonment of one year prescribed in Section 85(1)(a) of the Act, by imposing sentence of imprisonment for two months and three months respectively. The lower Court should have been more considerate having regard to payment of entire demanded amount by the accused. Hence, this Court proposes to alter the sentence of imprisonment to seven days each instead of two months and three months respectively. 4) In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but altering sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower Court from two months to seven days and from three months to seven days and confirming fine amounts. Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 10, 2010 KSH [1] (2001)II LLJ 429 SC [2] 2003(1) ALD Cri 817