LexAMIT VASHISTHA versus SURESH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 7 S.C.R. 736 AMIT VASHISTHA v. SURESH AND ANOTHER (CriminalAppealNo.245 of 2010) AUGUST 31, 2017 [RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.f Penal Code, 1860 - s.228 - Jn an adjudication proceeding u/s. 7 A of Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions C Act, 1952 with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint u/s. 228 that respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing and assaulting the Presiding Officer - Maintainability of complaint challenged - Held: s.2(i) of the Cr.P.C. defines a judicial proceeding to include any proceedings in the course of which D evidence is or may be legally taken on oath - This power is indisputably statutorily vested in the authority holding proceedings u/s. 7A of the 1952 Act. - Therefore, the proceedings u/s. 7A are deemed to be judicial proceedings and complaint u/s.228 maintainable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(l)(b)(i) E - Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 -s.7A. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The legislature, in its wisdom, considering the seriousness of the adjudicatory process under Section 7A of 1952 F Act vested it with the nature of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC. If the proceedings under Section 7A are deemed to be a judicial proceeding by fiction, it must be carried to its logical conclusion. Therefore, such a judicial proceeding can well be equated for that purpose with a court under Section 195(1)(b)(i). The High Court failed to consider G the effect of the judicial nature of the proceeding, simply by reference to Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. to hold that the proceedings did not partake the nature of a court, and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. (Para 6] [738-F-Hl H 736 AMIT VASHISTHA v. SURESH AND ANOTHER 737 Lalji Haridas v. State of Maharashtra [1964) 6 SCR A 700 - referred to. Case Law Reference [1964) 6 SCR 700 referred to Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2010. From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Cr. R.No.445 B of2007. C Keshav Mohan, Smarhar Singh, Piyush Choudhar, Advs. for the Appellant. · Suresh (in-person), C.D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Gaurav Shukla, Usman, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 30.01.2009 in Criminal Revisio:i No.445 of2007. By the impugned order, the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code on the premise that the adjudication proceedings . under Section 7 A of the Emplcyees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter for short the 'Act') not being before a court, the complaint itself was not maintainable. 2. In an adjudication proceeding under Section 7 A of the Act, with regard to provident fund claims of the respondent, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint on 22.06.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 228 !PC, that the respondent had obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing the Presiding Officer, and rushed to assault him, but the complainant was saved by the office staff. The Magistrate convicted the respondent till rising of the Court and imposed fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. In appeal, preferred by the respondent, the Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction released him under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on an undertaking of p;ood behavior for a period of one year. D E F G H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. A Aggrieved, the respondent moved the High Court in a revision application leading to the impugned order, thus the present appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court erred in not appreciating that the proceedings under Section 7 A were judicial proceedings, and misdirected itself in concluding that the office B of the appellant was not a court, and therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable under Section 195( 1 )(b )(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C'). 4. The respondent appearing in person, supporting the impugned order submitted that the proceedings under Section 7 A not being before c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.