Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No. 9 of 2007 State through Inspector (Enforcement Officer), Employees’ Provident Fund Organization represented through Sri C.P. Bara, Asstt. Commissioner (Legal) E.P.F. Organization, P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi .... Appellant Versus 1. M/s. Harishchandra Vidya Mandir at and PO-Kondra, Dist. Singhbhum West 2. Sri Subhash Chandra Varshani, President of Harishchandra Vidya Mandir, resident of 41, Hazra Road, PS Ballyganj, Dist. Kolkata (West Bengal) 3. Sri S.D. Singh Honorary Secretary of Harishchandra Vidya Mandir at present Acting Manager of M/s. Seraikella Glass Works Ltd. at & PO Kandra Dist. Singhbhum (West) 4. Sri Sachidanand Prasad Singh, Head Master (Middle School) of Harishchandra Vidya Mandir, at and PO-Kandra, Dist. Singhbhum West ... Opp. Parties --------------- CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE For the Appellant For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Judge of this Court interfered with the judgment of acquittal on the ground that the trial Court had failed to consider that M/s. Harishchandra Vidya Mandir and its office bearers were defaulters who did not comply with the provisions under section 14(1A) and 14(1B) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Whereas, not even the complainant was examined in this case during the trial and the prosecution did not produce any cogent evidence in support of the charge framed as aforementioned. 5. The learned SDJM at Seraikella held that the informant who conducted the inquiry did not come forward as a prosecution witness and no document was produced during the trial to demonstrate wages paid to the employees and required deductions thereon. The learned trial Judge further held that the complaint petition itself was vague and acquitted the accused of the charge framed under sections 14(1A) and 14(1B) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and para 76D of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme and sections 14A, 14A(1) and 14AA of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 6. The learned SDJM at Seraikella has held as under: “11. There is no chit of paper produced by the prosecution to support its case as to what amount of wages of the employees were required to be deducted and deposited by the prosecution. The entire allegation in the complaint petition seems to be a vague one and it cannot stand in the criminal trial. The allegation has to be lesser pointed on each and every fact of the crime which is totally missing in the matter. 12. The kind of evidence with the prosecution has given in this case, certainly leads me to believe that the prosecution denial is correct. 13. For the reasons discussed above and also considering the limping nature of evidence and missing link of crime, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and accordingly they all are also held not guilty of the charges as levelled against them and accordingly they all are held not guilty and acquitted. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bond, and their sureties are also stand discharged. Let M/s Harish Chandra Vidya Mandir, Subash Chandra Varshanai, S.B. Singh and Sachchidanand Prasad Singh be set free at liberty forthwith.” 7. The powers of the High Court under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide and the provisions under section 378 do not put fetters on the powers of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and 3 arrive at its independent conclusion. Therefore, it shall be legal for the High Court to reverse the findings recorded by the trial Judge and convict the accused. However, there are certain legally evolved rules which a High Court while entertaining an Acquittal Appeal shall always keep in mind and one of such rules is whether there is any compelling circumstance to reverse the findings of acquittal and convict the accused. Now this is too well settled a proposition that the appellate Court shall not interfere with the judgment of acquittal wherever two views are possible on appreciation of the materials on record. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: In “Sambasivan v. State of Kerala” (1998) 5 SCC 412 the “7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal....” 9. accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No.9 of 2007 is dismissed. While so, this Court finds no merit in this Acquittal Appeal and (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) R.K.
Arguments
: Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate : Ms. Surabhi, Advocate --------------- Order No.11 / 12th March 2024 This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment delivered on 4th February 2003 in C/2 Case No.113 of 1996 corresponding to Trial No.288 of 2003. 2. The only ground urged in support of this Acquittal Appeal is the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Acquittal Appeal Nos.10 of 2006, 18 of 2006 and 19 of 2006. Mr. Yogendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only difference between this Acquittal Appeal and the aforementioned Acquittal Appeals is the period of default and, therefore, the present Acquittal Appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. However, this Court is not inclined to accept this submission simply for the reason that a decision of the co-ordinate Bench shall be binding on another co-ordinate Bench only on a point of law adjudicated and decided by the previous co-ordinate Bench. Moreover, in criminal jurisprudence a case has no precedential value unless some point in law has been decided (refer, “Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.” (1955) 2 SCR 2 1140). 4. Furthermore, a glance at the orders passed in the aforementioned Acquittal Appeals indicates that witnesses including the complainant were examined in those cases. Furthermore, the learned Single