9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an officer of a company can be deemed guilty of an offence under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, without proof of consent, connivance, or neglect. 2. Whether mens rea is a necessary constituent of the offence under paragraph 76 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Guilt of Company Officers Without Proof of Consent, Connivance, or Neglect: The court examined the provisions of Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, which deals with offences by companies. Sub-section (1) states that if a company commits an offence, every person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed guilty of the offence. The proviso to this sub-section allows such a person to avoid punishment if they prove the offence was committed without their knowledge or despite due diligence to prevent it. Sub-section (2) specifies that if the offence is committed with the consent, connivance, or due to the neglect of any director, manager, secretary, or other officer, such individuals shall be deemed guilty. The court concluded that Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) classify officers into different categories with varying degrees of responsibility. Officers directly in charge of management fall under Sub-section (1), while other officers fall under Sub-section (2). Therefore, the prosecution must prove consent, connivance, or neglect for officers under Sub-section (2), but not for those under Sub-section (1). 2. Necessity of Mens Rea: The court addressed whether mens rea (criminal intent) is a necessary constituent of the offence under paragraph 76 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. It noted that while mens rea is generally required for criminal offences, it is not universally applicable. The court referred to the principle that for offences mala prohibita (prohibited by statute), especially those involving social welfare legislation, mens rea may not be necessary unless explicitly stated by the legislature. The court emphasized that the Employees' Provident Funds Act is a social legislation aimed at promoting employee welfare. The mandatory nature of contributions under the Act and the Scheme indicates that mens rea is not a required element for offences under paragraph 76. The court compared Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14, noting that while Sub-section (1) requires knowledge for an offence, Sub-section (2) does not. The absence of a mens rea requirement in Sub-section (2) and the onus on the accused to prove lack of knowledge under Section 14A further support this conclusion. Application of Principles to Respondents: Respondent 3 (Company): The court found that the company violated paragraph 38 by failing to remit contributions and submit returns, thus committing an offence under paragraph 76. The company's acquittal was set aside, and it was convicted and fined Rs. 250. Respondent 1 (Managing Director): As the Managing Director, Respondent 1 was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, falling under Sub-section (1) of Section 14A. There was no evidence that the offence was committed without his knowledge or despite due diligence. Therefore, his acquittal was set aside, and he was convicted and fined Rs. 250, with a default sentence of one month of simple imprisonment. Respondent 2 (Factory Manager): The court found no evidence that Respondent 2, as Factory Manager, was in charge of the company's management. Thus, his case fell under Sub-section (2) of Section 14A, requiring proof of consent, connivance, or neglect, which was not provided. Consequently, his acquittal was affirmed. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for Respondents 1 and 3, leading to their conviction and fines, while it was dismissed for Respondent 2, affirming his acquittal.
|
