On the basis of this companyplaint the learned Magistrate took companynizance and issued summons against the respondents to stand trial.
Hence they were number liable for prosecution under Section 406.
From this judgment the present appeal has been filed by the original companyplainant.
The learned Magistrate also issued a search warrant for seizure of certain records of the companypany as prayed for by the companyplainant.
The High Court by its impugned judgment has quashed the proceedings on the ground that the respondents cannot be companysidered as employers within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 405 read with Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereupon the appellant lodged a companyplaint against the respondents of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 Explanation 2 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
2,223.50 as employees share of companytribution from their wages during the period February 1981 to September 1981.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed an application under Section 401/482 of the Criminal Procedure companye for quashing the proceedings in the said case.
Under sub section 4 any sum deducted by the principal employer from wages under this Act shall be deemed to have been entrusted to him by the employee for the purpose of paying the companytribution in respect of which it was deducted.
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. The respondents were, at the material time, directors of a companypany M s. Indo Japan Steel Ltd. The companypany has a factory and head office at calcutta.
The companyplainant who is the appellant before us inspected the head office of the companypany and found that the companypany had deducted a sum of Rs.
The employer, however, had failed to deposit the said amount in the Employees State Insurance Fund within the specified time.
