EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION versus A. K. ABDUL SAMAD & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 10-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. J 50 
A 
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
A. K. ABDUL SAMAD & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. I 065-1066 OF 2005) 
MARCH 10, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) 
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948: 
s.85(a)(i){b) - Whether the court has been given judicial discretion 
only to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for any term lesser 
than six months or whether it also has discretion to levy no fine or 
a fine of less than five thousand rupees - Held: The courts have no 
discretion to reduce the fine amount once the offence has been 
established- The discretion as per proviso is confined only in respect 
of term of imprisoninent . 
Interpretation of statutes: When the wordings of the Statute 
are clear, no interpretation is required unless there is a requirement 
of saving the provisions from vice of u11co11stitutionality or absurdity. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Section 85(a)(i)(b) prescribes punishment for a 
particular offence as imprisonment which shall not be less than 
six months and the convict shall also be liable to fine of five 
thousand rupees. The proviso however empowers the court that 
it may, "for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in 
the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser 
term". The object of creating offence and penalty under the Act 
of 1948 is clearly to create deterrenc'e against violation of 
provisions of the Act which are beneficial for the employees. Non-
payment of contributions is an economic offence and therefore 
the Legislature has not only fixed a minimum term of 
imprisonment but also a fixed amount of fine of five thousand 
rupees under Section 85(a)(i)(b) of the Act. There is no discretion 
of awarding less than the specified fee, under the main provision. 
It is only the proviso which is in the nature of an exception 
whereunder the court is vested with discretion limited to 
imposition of imprisonment for a lesser term. Conspicuously, no 
150 
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. A. K. 
151 
ABDUL SAMAb 
words are found in the proviso for imposing a lesser fine than 
A 
that of five thousand rupees. In such a situation the intention of 
the Legislature is clear and brooks no interpretation. The law is 
well settled that when the wordings of the Statute are clear, no 
interpretation is required unless there is a requirement of saving 
the provisions from vice of unconstitutionality or absurdity. 
B 
Neither of the twin situations is attracted herein. Hence the 
amount of fine has to be Rupees five thousand and the courts 
have no. discretion to reduce the same once the offence has been 
established. 
[Paras 1, 8 and 9] (152-B-C; 156-C-F] 
Sebastian (ji) Kunju v. State 1992 ·cri LJ 3642; Tetar 
Gope v. Ganauri Gope AIR 1968 Pat 287;Surinder 
Kumar v. State (1987) 1 SCC 467;Pa/aniappa 
Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu (1977) 2 SCC 634:1977 
(3) SCR 132; Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of 
India (1999) 7 SCC 409:1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 87; 
Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory v. State of 
Karnataka (1981) 1 SCC 645: 1981 (2) SCR 604; 
Chern Taong Shang v. S.D. Ba/jal (1988) 1 SCC 507: 
1988 (2) SCR 641 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1992 Cri LJ 3642 
referred to. 
Para2 
Am 1968 Pat 287 
referred to. 
Para2 
(1987) 1 sec 467 
referred to. 
Para2 
1977 (3) SCR 132 
referred to. 
Para2 
' 
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 87 
referred to. 
Para4 
1981 (2) SCR 604 
referred to. 
Para4 
1988 (2) SCR 641 
referred to. 
Paras· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. I 065-1066 of2005 
c 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2004 of the High Court 
G 
ofKarnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petitions No. 1326 and 
1327 of2002 
Mahesh Srivastava, Vaibhav M. Srivastava, P. N. Puri, Advs., for 
the Appellant. 
H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
P. B. Suresh, Vi pin Nair, Udayaditya Banerjee, Prithu Garg, Mis. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Temple Law Firm, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. The question of law deserving 
adjudication in these appeals arises out of Section 85(a)(i)(b) of the 
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act (for brevity, 'the Act'). 
The aforesaid statutory provision prescribes punishment for a particular 
offence as imprisonment which shall not be less than six months and the 
convict shall also be liable to fine of five thousand rupees. The proviso 
however em
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.