APHC010650912012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.828 OF 2012 Between: Provident Fund Inspector, Enforcement Officer, District Office, Eluru. ...APPELLANT AND M/s Sri Vijaya Durga Agro Oil Industries Rep. by its Managing Partner Kalla Sakuntala and others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) Counsel for the Respondents: 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant/the Provident Fund Inspector against the Judgment dated 02.09.2008 passed in STC No.4 of 2004 by the learned Additional Judicial 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari district, whereby and whereunder the respondents 1 to 3 herein/A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 14(2) and 38(2) of the Employees‟ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short „the Act‟) read with Para 76(b) of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said offences. 2. The Provident Fund Inspector, Enforcement Officer, District Office, Eluru, filed a complaint against the respondents 1 to 3 herein/A1 to A3, under Section 14(2) of the Act read with Para 76(b) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, alleging that M/s. Sri Vijaya Durga Agro Oils Industries, Prathipadu, West Godavari district is an establishment under the provisions of the Act, having provident fund Code No.AP 14333 with effect from 01.04.1986 and conducted business transactions. In spite of several persuasions, the accused failed to submit monthly returns in Form No.12-A for the months of July 2001 and August 2001, thereby contravened Section 14(2) of the Act read with Para 76(b) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, Hence the 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 complaint, as per sanction orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Rajahmundry, dated 11.02.2004. 3. The complaint was taken on file as STC No.4 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, under Section 14(2) of the Act read with Para 76(b) of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. 4. After appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to them and they were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. They denied the charge sheet allegations, when read over and explained to them in Telugu and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of PW.1, for which they denied. 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 7. On behalf of the accused, none was examined and no documents were marked. 8. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 14(2) and 38(2) of the Act read with Para 76(b) of the Employees‟ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said offences, vide impugned judgment dated 02.09.2008, on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, the complainant – Provident Fund Inspector preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Sri T. Balaji, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, submits that A2 and A3, who are the Managing Partner and Partner of A1 establishment, are responsible for conduct of its business and they are required to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. He emphasized that in spite of requests, the accused in contravention of Section 38(2) of the Act, failed to submit monthly returns in Form-12A for the months of July 2001 and August 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 2001. He further submits that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.1 in proper perspective and erred in acquitting the accused of the aforesaid offences. 10. On the other hand, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3, submits that the accused establishment was not in a running condition by the time of inspection by PW.1‟s predecessor on 25.09.2001 and the accused purchased the establishment from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation in a public auction, hence the establishment is entitled for infancy protection for three (3) years and not liable to submit the returns. He further submits that the learned Magistrate, having found that there is no evidence adduced by the complainant on record to show that who were the persons having ultimate control over the establishment, has rightly acquitted the accused and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. Heard. Perused the record. 12. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 13. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab1, wherein it was held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 14. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the PF Enforcement Officer, District Office, Eluru as PW.1. PW.1 stated that his predecessor inspected the accused establishment on 25.09.2001 and found that the accused failed to submit the monthly consolidated statements under Form 12A for the months of July 2001 and August 2001. Then, a show cause notice was issued to the accused establishment under Ex.P1. In spite of receipt of show cause notice, the accused failed to submit 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 the returns, hence the present complaint was filed against them after obtaining necessary prosecution sanction orders under Ex.P2. 15. Whereas, case of the accused is that the accused establishment was not in a running condition by the time of inspection by PW.1‟s predecessor on 25.09.2001 and the accused purchased the establishment from the State Financial Corporation in a public auction, as such the establishment is entitled for infancy protection for three (3) years and not liable to submit the returns. 16. As seen from the evidence on record, there is no evidence adduced by the complainant on record to show as to who were the persons having ultimate control over the accused establishment. Even the evidence on record does not reveal that the accused are having ultimate control over the establishment. The prosecution simply mentioned the names of the accused. The contention of the accused is that the accused firm is a partnership firm and having number of partners and in order to ascertain the real persons, who were having ultimate control over the establishment, it is the primary duty of the complainant to take 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 the particulars of the owners of the accused establishment, from the accused establishment. But, there is no evidence on record to show that the complainant obtained the particulars of the owners as provided under the Act. Hence, in the absence of particulars of the owners, it cannot be said that the accused were the persons who were having ultimate control over the establishment only basing on the oral testimony of PW.1. 17. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW.1 is not the person, who issued show cause notice to the accused and filed the present complaint after obtaining the prosecution sanction. The evidence of PW.1 does not reveal clear picture of the accused establishment and the communications made in between the accused establishment and the complainant. 18. The cross-examination of PW.1 also reveals that whenever there is a suggestion made by the defence counsel, PW.1 simply stated that he does not know about the said suggestion or question. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 and documents marked on behalf of the complainant are not sufficient to show the particulars of the establishment and in whose control it is. 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 02.09.2008 passed in STC No.4 of 2004 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:09.04.2025. Nsr 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.828 of 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.828 of 2012 Dated:09.04.2025 Nsr