IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.690-694 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3249-3253/2004)

Union of India ...Appellant(s)

Versus

R.Dhandayuthapani ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent was one of the four persons named in the complaints filed  

by the Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Tamil Nadu under Section  14(1A) read with Section 14(A) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous  

Provision Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’), which were registered as CC Nos.97-119 and  121 to 133 of 2000.  The substratum of the allegations contained in the complaints is  

that the employer, namely, M/s. Kominar Textiles (P) Ltd. did not deposit provident  fund  dues  of  the  workers  for  the  period  from  October,  1995  to  May,  1997  and  

Managing  Director,  Joint  Managing  Director  and Director  of  the  mill,  who were  responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment are responsible for the  

same.   On  being  noticed  by  the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  Udumalpet,  the  respondent filed petition under Section 482 of the  Code  of Criminal Procedure for  

quashing the proceedings ....2/-

- 2 -

of complaints instituted by the Enforcement Officer by asserting that he had resigned  from the position of Director much before filing of the complaints and an intimation  

to this effect was sent to the Registrar of Companies in Form No.32. By the impugned order,  the High Court accepted the respondent’s  plea  

that he could not have been arrayed as an accused because he had resigned from the  position of the Director before institution of complaints.   

A perusal of the record shows that even though an intimation was sent to  the  Registrar  of  Companies  on  27.2.1997  about  the  alleged  resignation  of  the  

respondent,  in  the  return  of  the  ownership  submitted  before  the  Regional  Commissioner, Provident Funds in Form 5A on 18.8.1997, the respondent was shown  

as Director of the Company.  This being the position, the question whether or not the  respondent could be held liable for non deposit of the provident fund dues of the  

workers ought to have been left to be decided during trial and the High Court was not  justified in quashing the proceedings of the complaints.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court  is set aside.  The Trial Court shall now decide the complaints in accordance with law  

and  while  doing  so,  it  shall  examine  all  the  pleas  which  may  be  taken  by  the  respondent and others.  

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, April 09, 2009.