Criminal Misc. No.218-MA 2005 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.218-MA 2005 Date of decision : 20.8.2008 Employees State Insurance Corporation .....Appellant Versus Shri J.P.Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None S. D. ANAND, J. Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) launched a prosecution under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “ESI Act”) against respondents-accused on the allegation that respondent, as Managing Director and principal employer incharge of establishment, had failed to pay the ESI contribution for the wage period from November, 1993 to January, 1994 and March 1994 to November, 1994. The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Court, which recorded that “all reliance of complainant concern is on form 01 which is Ex. P3. Complainant argued that in this Form JP Singh is shown to be Principal Employer but the evidence on record speaks that inspection was done by R.K.Gupta who is not produced to face cross-examination, hence as per law, complainant is guilty for with- Criminal Misc. No.218-MA 2005 -2- **** holding best evidence and adverse inference is liable to be drawn. Inspection report was acknowledged by Sarabmjit Singh, another Director of accused concern. It was argued that information form 01 is provided by the concerned itself and is not verified from any other record. At the time of Ex. P3 Managing Director was Ravinder Singh and figures in Form 01 were filled by Kuldip Singh. Complainant has proved no other document or record imnplicating J.P. Singh except inspection report. R.K. Gupta prepared the report who has not come to face cross-examination. Inspection report Ex. P1 was prepared on the basis of information provided by Sarabjit Singh and was not verified from the records. In this manner, in the eyes of law, this evidence is hear say only. In Column No. 8 of Ex. P3 J.P. Singh is not shown to be principle employer. J.P.Singh did not sign Ex. Pl to Ex. P3. Sole witness conducted the inspection. In Ex. P3 itself the witness is admitted that J.P.Singh is shown to be Manager and not Principal Employer, witness further concedes that he cannot say if J.P.Singh is Principal Employer. .......... Further as per record, Ravinger Singh, Kuljit Singh, Jaswinder Pal and Surjit Kaur are infact owners of the accused concern. No explanation is furnished even in arguments why these actual Principal Employers were not impleaded as accused and why J.P. Singh who is only shown to be Manager in the record of complainant itself, was impleaded. ........Sanction is marked A1 on record which is also not proved. As per law sanction for prosecution is mandatory. .......It is not proved categorically on record from the accounts that amount was actually deducted from Criminal Misc. No.218-MA 2005 -3- **** the wages of the employees and was not deposited and was liable to be deposited for the specified period.” The above finding is relatable to the evidence obtaining on the file. The view taken by the learned Trial Court, and also the reasoning recorded in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. Dismissed. August 20, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No