He took the view, as in the two earlier applications, that the operation of section 4 of the Act is restricted to the statutes mentioned in the Schedule to that Act and that clause iv of section 4 1 did number companytemplate stay of criminal proceedings.
The High Court of Gujarat rejected summarily the revision application filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Magistrate.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th February 1973 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.
On May 69 1972 the Gujarat Government issued a numberification declaring the companypany to be a relief undertaking under section 4 1 a iv of the Bombay Relief Undertakings Special Provisions Act, 1958 the Act , and directing that all rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all the proceedings relative thereto pending before any Court, tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed with effect from 6th May 1972 The appellants filed one application after another asking the companyrt which was seized of the matter to stay the prosecution in view of the numberification issued by the Government of Gujarat.
Two of such applications were rejected by the learned City Magistrate, III Court, Ahmeda bad.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
On March 19, 1969 a companyplaint was lodged against them by respondent 1, an Inspector appointed under the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 that they bad failed to pay a sum of Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal, No.
57 of 1973.
on October 27, 1972 they made yet another application for the same relief which also was rejected by the learned Magistrate.
3 is an officer of the said companypany.
Das, S. N. Anand and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
S. Chitaley and S. K. Dholakia, for the appellants.
1968 and that thereby they had companytravened the provisions of Paragraph 38 1 of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme.
1,39,419 .50 being the companytribution to the Provident Fund for the months of June, July and August.
86 of 1973.
Appellants acquiesced in one of the orders, carried the other in revision to the High Court but withdrew that proceeding.
An investigation was made into the affairs of the companypany under section 15 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 and on being satisfied that the companypany was managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest, the Government of India issued an order dated January 7, 1972 authorising the Gujarat State Textile Corporation to take over the management of the companypany.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. Appellants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are the directors of Rajnagar Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad, and appellant No.
1952, an act punishable under Paragraph 76 a of the Scheme.
