APHC010518992007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1074 OF 2007 Between: Employees State Insurance Corporation, having its Sub-Regional Office, Vijayawada, rep. by its Inspector. ...APPELLANT AND Sri S.M. Jamal and another ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: 1. U.R.P. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: 1. ----- 2. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 20.11.2006, passed in CC No.95 of 2005 by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, wherein respondent No.1 herein/sole accused was found not SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007 2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 85(a) and (e) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for brevity ‘ESI Act’) and, accordingly, he was acquitted of the said charge. 2. The appellant herein/complainant filed a complaint against respondent No.1 herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act. Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant is a public servant being an Inspector in Sub-Regional Office of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. The accused, being the principal employer, failed to pay contribution covering the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.10.2002 within the stipulated time. After following the due process of law, the competent authority, by virtue of powers vested under Section 45 of the Act, issued assessment order on 30.09.2003 calling upon the accused to pay contributions to the extent of Rs.1,07,377/-. When the accused failed to submit the return of contributions in Form-6, the complainant-Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 06.03.2003 calling upon the accused to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. Hence, the complaint. SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007 3 3. The complaint was taken on file as CC No.95 of 2005 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offence under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act, against the accused. 4. After appearance of the accused, the accused was examined under Section 239 CrPC and charge under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act was framed, contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. By his judgment, dated 20.11.2006, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 85(a) and (e) of the ESI Act and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the complainant- Corporation preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 6. Heard. Perused the record. 7. A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that the complainant Corporation failed to examine any witness on its behalf. It is evident from a perusal of the record that the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2005 and the matter was posted for trial and summons were issued to LWs.1 to 3. Since then, the case underwent several adjournments. On SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007 4 14.11.2005, case was posted to 02.12.2005 as last chance for complainant’s side evidence. In spite of the same, the complainant failed to produce the witnesses on 02.12.2005, 30.12.2005 and 16.01.2006. On 16.01.2006, the evidence of the complainant was closed, as the complainant failed to produce the witnesses, and the case was posted for arguments. At this stage, on 21.02.2006, the complainant filed Crl.MP No.367 of 2006 for reopening of the case and the same was allowed on 13.04.2006 on payment of costs of Rs.750/-. Thereafter, the case underwent several adjournments and the complainant did not produce the witnesses on its behalf. Hence, the Court below closed the evidence of the complainant. In spite of giving several opportunities, the complainant failed to produce the witnesses in order to co-operate the Court for disposal of the case. In view of the said reasons, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the charge leveled against him and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge. 8. Against the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the complainant Corporation in the year 2007 and notice was taken out to respondent No.1/accused, but the same was not served on him so far. On 22.09.2023, Sri A.Eswar SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007 5 Sai, learned counsel, represented Sri U.R.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant was present. On that day, this Court directed the appellant to take personal notice to respondent No.1/ accused through registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service thereof in the Registry on or before 13.10.2023. Today, Sri V. Kalyana Chakravarthi, learned counsel, representing Sri URP Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted a copy of letter dated 21.11.2023, addressed by the complainant Corporation to them, stating that the notices on respondent No.1/accused were not served. As per the said letter, neither respondent No.1/accused nor the establishment was found in the given address. 9. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that despite the fact that several opportunities were given to the appellant/complainant to produce its witnesses, it failed to do so. In view of the said reason, the learned Magistrate closed the evidence on appellant/complainant side. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate held that there is no evidence to find the accused guilty and accordingly acquitted the accused of the charge levelled against it. Thereafter, the present appeal has been preferred in the year 2007. From 2007 onwards, the appellant SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007 6 herein/complainant Corporation could not serve notice on respondent No.1/accused in the present appeal. More so, the complainant Company failed to produce its witnesses to prove its case during trial of the case. This Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal, since the same is pending for the past 18 years for service of notice on respondent No.1/accused and the appellant failed to serve notice on respondent No.1/accused till date. Therefore, there is no legal evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent No.1/accused for the charge leveled against it. Considering the same, the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent No.1/accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Dated:19.03.2025 Nsr SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.1074 of 2007 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1074 of 2007 Dated:19.03.2025 Nsr