- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13902 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1115 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. M/S ELECTREX (INDIA) NO.21-D1 PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA II PHASE, BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY AJITH V HEGDE 2. MR AJITH V HEGDE S/O VIGNESWARA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.607, OPPOSITE TO RMV CLUB 80 FEET ROAD, DOLLAR COLONY BENGALURU-560 094 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI UDAY URS N FOR SRI DESU REDDY G, ADVOCATES; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2026, P2 IS DEAD) AND: THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONS NO.6(1) F, 1ST CROSS PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.S.VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13902 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2017 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.06.2015 IN C.C.NO.265/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BANGALORE IN SO FAR AS CONVICTING AND SENTENCING THE PETITIONERS AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.09.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.942/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Uday Urs N, advocate for Sri Desu Reddy G, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K.S. Venkataramana, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this revision petition, accused Nos.1 and 3 have suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 14(1B) r/w 14A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 3. The allegation against the accused persons is that they have deducted the contribution from the employees' salary but failed to deposit the same with the authorized agency and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13902 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2017 thereby misappropriated the money which is established by placing necessary evidence on record. 4. Accused No.3 was the Director of accused No.1/Company. Accused No.2 being the Executive Director, was acquitted by the learned Trial Magistrate. State did not choose to file any appeal against the said order of acquittal. 5. It is the first and third accused who filed appeals before the District Court. 6. Learned Judge in the District Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the material on record, found that mandatory provisions are violated by the accused and therefore, upheld the order of conviction. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court in this revision petition. 8. During pendency of this revision petition, accused No.3 who was representing the accused No.1 as the Director, died. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13902 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2017 9. Memo is filed in that regard and therefore revision petition stood abated insofar as the accused No.3 is concerned. 10. Therefore what remains before this Court to be considered is, the conviction of the first accused/Company imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- for the proved offence. 11. Sri Uday, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that there was no willful violation of the provisions of law and the material on record was not sufficient to establish the offence alleged against the revision petitioners. 12. To appreciate said arguments of revision petitioners, it is just and necessary to cull out Section 14A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which reads as under: “14A. Offences by companies.—(1) If the person committing an offence under this Act [,the Scheme or [the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance Scheme]] is a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13902 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2017 the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act [,the Scheme or [the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance Scheme]] has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director or manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm and other association of individuals; and (b) “director” in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” 13. On close perusal of the above provision, taking note of the fact that the material evidence on record reflects that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13902 CRL.RP No. 1115 of 2017 amount towards the contribution of the provident fund has been deducted by the first accused-Company and not deposited with the concerned authorities, itself concludes the offence. 14. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioners cannot be countenanced in law. 15. Since a sum of Rs.5,000/- is imposed as the fine amount to the first accused/Company and, third accused being dead, the revision petition needs to be dismissed upholding the order of conviction and imposition of fine, insofar as the first accused- Company is concerned. 16. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50