CRM-M-38631-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133 CRM-M-38631-2023 Date of decision : 09.07.2026 AJAY KUMAR ... PETITIONER Versus PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate and Ms. Shivani Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate for the respondent. *** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind in Complaint No.COMA/686/2013, whereby the application for exemption from personal appearance of Sh. Kishan Partap, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rohtak was allowed. 2. The case of the prosecution are that the aforesaid complaint was instituted by the Provident Fund Inspector, Office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rohtak against M/s Sandhu Security Services and the petitioner-Ajay Kumar for commission of offence punishable under Section 14(2A) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Para 76(b) and (c) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. During the pendency of the said complaint, the petitioner moved an application dated 08.02.2023 for summoning five witnesses in his defence SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.14 18.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38631-2023 -2- including Sh. Kishan Partap, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rohtak along with the record of inquiry No.7-A dated 06.09.2013. The learned trial Court allowed the said request and permitted the petitioner to deposit diet money for summoning the witnesses. Subsequently, an application (Annexure P-2) was moved by Sh. Kamal Sharma, Accounts Officer (Legal), Regional Provident Fund Office, Rohtak seeking exemption from personal appearance of Sh. Kishan Partap and offering himself for examination in his place. Vide impugned order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3), the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind allowed the said application and directed examination of Sh. Kamal Sharma instead of Sh. Kishan Partap. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind is unsustainable under the law as the witness-Sh. Kishan Partap was the Inquiry Officer in inquiry No.7-A dated 06.09.2013 and his examination is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and no other official can depose in his place regarding the proceedings conducted by him. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the application seeking exemption of Sh. Kishan Partap was moved by Sh. Kamal Sharma without any authority and the same was allowed without issuing notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order (Annexure P-3) only deals with the manner in which a departmental witness is to be examined, which is within the powers and discretion of the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has been SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.14 18.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38631-2023 -3- given full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and defend his case before the Trial Court and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him. It is also submitted that the petitioner is only trying to delay the trial, which has been pending since 2013, by raising technical objections regarding the examination of witnesses. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether, after a particular witness had been summoned by the Trial Court on the request of the accused for the purpose of his defence, another official could seek substitution of the said witness and appear in his place, particularly when the original witness was required to depose regarding the proceedings conducted by him. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had moved an application dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) for summoning certain witnesses in his defence, including Sh. Kishan Partap, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rohtak, along with the record pertaining to inquiry No.7-A dated 06.09.2013. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court and the petitioner was permitted to take necessary steps for securing the presence of the said witness. The purpose of summoning Sh. Kishan Partap was not merely to produce the official record, but also to examine the officer who had conducted the inquiry proceedings. 9. However, subsequently, an application was moved by Sh. Kamal Sharma, Accounts Officer (Legal), Regional Provident Fund Office, Rohtak SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.14 18.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38631-2023 -4- seeking exemption from personal appearance of Sh. Kishan Partap and permitting himself to appear as a witness in his place. A perusal of the record shows that Sh. Kamal Sharma was neither the complainant nor the witness who had conducted the inquiry. There was no authority or locus standi with the said official to seek substitution of a defence witness, who had already been summoned pursuant to an order passed by the trial Court. The application, on the face of it, was not maintainable, as the same was neither moved by the complainant nor by the prosecution in accordance with law. 10. Further, the examination of Sh. Kishan Partap, who was stated to be the Inquiry Officer in the aforesaid proceedings, may have a direct bearing upon the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to examine and cross-examine a witness who had personally conducted the proceedings, merely by allowing another official to step into his place. A person who has not conducted the inquiry may produce the record, but he cannot answer questions relating to the manner in which the inquiry was conducted or the circumstances which were within the personal knowledge of the Inquiry Officer. 11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to summon Sh. Kishan Partap, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rohtak (the original witness) to step into the witness box for the purpose of his examination in accordance with law. 12. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2026. The Trial Court shall thereafter fix a specific date for the SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.14 18.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-38631-2023 -5- deposition of the aforesaid witness and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (H.S.GREWAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA GUGNANI 2026.07.14 18.38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh