Enforcement Employees Provident Fund Organisation V. Associated Precision Spindles Star Industries Ltd and Sri P.D. Takalkar

CRL.A/2611/2013

AI Insights

The case involves multiple criminal appeals filed by the Enforcement Employees Provident Fund Organisation against M/s. Associated Precision Spindles Star Industries Ltd and its director, Sri P.D. Takalkar. The appeals challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court, which had found that the complaints were barred by limitation and that the inspector who filed the complaints was not properly authorized. The High Court examined whether the trial court erred in its application of the law regarding the limitation period for filing complaints under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1962, and whether the inspector had the requisite authority to file the complaints.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799249 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act 1962, Criminal Procedure Code
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: UNREPRESENTED
• Assessee Lawyers: H DODDERI
• Keywords: Acquittal; Authority; Complaint; Limitation; Provident fund; Inspector
• Section: 13; 14(A); 7A; 14(1)(a); 468; 378; 14AC

Judgement Text

" Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2015 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2611/2013 C/w. CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 2610/2013, 2612/2013, 2613/2013, 2614/2013, 2615/2013, 2623/2013, 2624/2013, 2625/2013, 2626/2013, 2627/2013, 2628/2013, 2630/2013, 2631/2013, 2632/2013, 2633/2013, 2634/2013, 2635/2013, 2636/2013, 2629/2013, 2637/2013, 2638/2013, 2639/2013, 2640/2013, 2641/2013, 2642/2013, 2643/2013, 2644/2013, 2645/2013, 2646/2013, 2647/2013, 2648/2013, 2649/2013, 2650/2013, 2651/2013, 2652/2013, 2653/2013, 2654/2013, 2655/2013, 2656/2013, 2657/2013, 2658/2013, 2659/2013, 2660/2013, 2661/2013, 2662/2013 AND 2663/2013, BETWEEN THE ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, NOW AT BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NEW BLOCK NO.10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE NAVANAGAR, HUBLI – 580 025. ... APPELLANT [COMMON IN ALL THE CASES] (BY SRI.H.VENKATESHA DODDERI, ADVOCATE) Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 2 AND 1. M/S.ASSOCIATED PRECISION SPINDLES STAR INDUSTRIES LTD NEAR TAPOVAN, KALGERI DHARWAD, REP BY DIRECTOR. 2. SRI.P.D.TAKALKAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, DIRECTOR & OCCUPIER, DHANRAJ MAHAL, CHHATRPATHI SHIVAJI MAHARAJ MARG MUMBAI – 400 039. ... RESPONDENTS [COMMON IN ALL THE CASES] (R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * CRIMINAL APPEAL 2611/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.356/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2610/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.355/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2612/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.357/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 3 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2613/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.358/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2614/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.359/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2615/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.360/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2623/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.361/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2624/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.362/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2625/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.363/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 4 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2626/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.364/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2627/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.385/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2628/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.386/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2630/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.388/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2631/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.389/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2632/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.390/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 5 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2633/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.391/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2634/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.392/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2635/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.393/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2636/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.396/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2629/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.387/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2637/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.397/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 6 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2638/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.398/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2639/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.400/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2640/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.402/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2641/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.403/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2642/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.404/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2643/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.405/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 7 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2644/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.406/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2645/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.407/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2646/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.408/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2647/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.409/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2648/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.410/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2649/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.411/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 8 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2650/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.412/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2651/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.413/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2652/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.414/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2653/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.415/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2654/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.416/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2655/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.417/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 9 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2656/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.418/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2657/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.419/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2658/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.420/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2659/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.421/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2660/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.422/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2661/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.423/2006. Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 10 CRIMINAL APPEAL 2662/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.424/2006. CRIMINAL APPEAL 2663/2013 IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD IN C.C.NO.425/2006. THESE CRL.A’S COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The Judgment and Orders acquitting the respondents for the charge under Sections 14(A) and 14(1)(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act 1962 [hereinafter referred to as “The Act” for short] are challenged in these appeals. 2. The facts reveal that respondents 1 and 2 were the accused in the trial Court and they are the Company and its director respectively and run Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 11 an industry in which the employees were working and the provisions of the aforesaid Act are applicable to them. The 1st respondent company had to comply with the requirement of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971, Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and Employees Deposit Linked in Insurance Scheme 1976. It is necessary for the company to contribute provident fund every month before expiry of the 15th of next month. The company is said to have not contributed Provident Fund from March 2001 for different periods. It is in this context that the Enforcement Officer submitted the complaints against the respondents to the trial Court for contravention of the aforesaid funds. In all these cases, P.W.1-P.Mallikarjuna in some cases and A.Y.Chandrashekara in some cases were examined and in their evidence, documents Exs.P1 to 11 were marked. After recording the Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 12 statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no documentary evidence was lead. The trial Court heard counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, acquitted the respondents for the charges in all these cases. Aggrieved by the acquittal, these appeals have been preferred. 3. I have heard learned counsel Sri. H.Venkatesha Dodderi for the appellants. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel that the conclusion of the trial Court regarding the limitation is improper. He submits that the guidelines relied upon by the trial Court are meant for the entire administration of the officials of the complainant and on the basis of the said limitation provided under the guidelines, a complaint cannot be dismissed. He submits that there was an enquiry under Section 7A of the Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 13 aforesaid Act and the order after enquiry was not challenged by the respondents and therefore, the company and its director are responsible to pay the contribution and as the violation in payment of the contribution is an offence, the material placed on record is sufficient to convict the accused. It is also his submission that the complainant has been authorized to file the complaint under Section 13 of the Act and he has a jurisdiction to lodge a complaint and therefore, he submits that the trial Court committed an error in granting the order of acquittals. 5. The perusal of the provisions of Section 14AC of the Act reveals that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under the Act on a report in writing of the fact constituting such an offence with the previous sanction of the Central Government Provident Fund Commissioner or other Officer as authorized by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette or by an Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 14 Inspector appointed under Section 14 of the Act. The perusal of the provisions of Sections 14AC of the Act does not reveal any limitation so far as the complaint to be filed is concerned. Learned trial Judge has relied upon the guidelines for the internal administration of the department, wherein a limitation to present the complaint has been provided for the Inspector to lodge the complaint after obtaining the sanction. The guidelines do not have a statutory force. Therefore, the Court cannot rely upon such guidelines to dismiss the complaint as barred by time. When the Act itself does not provide any limitation to lodge the complaint relying upon the guidelines meant for internal administration is both improper and erroneous. That apart, if we look into Section 468 Cr.P.C., the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. The limitation provided is one year from the date Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 15 of the offence. Admittedly, the notice of demand was issued on 01.12.2000. Despite the demand made, the contribution was not paid by the employer. The last date was 31st January 2002 to pay the contribution and the limitation would commence from the next day. But, any how, it is relevant to note that the sanction to prosecute the respondents from the essential requirement of Sections 14AC of the Act and this sanction was obtained by the authorities on 21.10.2005. So, the period for obtaining the sanction has to be excluded for the purpose of contributing the period of limitation. If this period is excluded by the complaint filed by the appellant in the trial Court on 21.10.2006 is just within the limitation. The approach of the trial Court in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation is improper. Secondly, it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there is compliance Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 16 of Section 13 of the Act. The aforesaid provision is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience: “Inspectors.-(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as thinks fit to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Act, the Scheme, the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, and may define their jurisdiction. (2) xxxxx” As per the aforesaid provision, it is necessary for the authorized Officer to notify in the Official Gazette. According to the appellant, the complaint was filed by an Inspector viz., V.Sundaraiah, who is said to have obtained the sanction for prosecuting the respondents. It is necessary to set-out as to whether the appellant has made available any material on record to show that one V.Sundaraiah was appointed as an Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 17 Inspector under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and whether he had the power to lodge the complaint. The perusal of the documents at Exs.P1 to 11 does not reveal any such notification have been produced by the appellant to show that the name of V.Sundaraiah was recited as Inspector to lodge the complaint with the trial Court under Section 13 of the Act and there is nothing to show on record that he had authority to lodge the complaint with the jurisdictional Court. The appellant has produced before the trial Court the notification related to P.W.1-P.Mallikarjuna and A.Y.Chandrashekara. They were witnesses examined as P.W.1 in all these cases. They had not filed any complaint before the learned Magistrate. The fact that their names in the notification or that they had the jurisdiction has no relevance to find out as to whether there is compliance with Section 13 of the Act. It is the Inspector, who lodged the complaint must have been notified as the Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 18 person as an Inspector under Section 13 of the Act and had the jurisdiction to lodge the complaint as on that day. So, in the absence of any notification having been produced and in view of the contentions taken up by the respondents/accused in the trial Court, it has been held that no authority has been produced to establish that V.Sundaraiah, the Inspector, who lodged the complaint was appointed as such by notification of the appropriate Government and had the authority to file the complaint. So, when there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, the complaint lodged is by a person having no competency and therefore, this ground was accepted by the trial Court in granting an order of acquittal. Though on the other ground the appellant claimed a right to seek contribution of the provident fund, as the appellant has failed to establish that the Inspector who lodged the complaint under Section 13 of the Act had the Crl.A.2611/13 & connected cases 19 authority to file the complaint. I do not think that the impugned Judgment and Order could be interfered with in these appeals. Therefore, as the appeals have no merits, they are liable to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek contribution from the liquidator of the 1st respondent, who is said to have been appointed in the winding up proceedings of the said company. Sd/- JUDGE Ksm* "