The Madras High Court ruled that the appellate court’s decision to deny the suspension of the sentence was justified as the accused failed to surrender or appear before the trial court on the date of judgement.
The Madras High Court ruled that the appellate court’s decision to deny the suspension of the sentence was justified as the accused failed to surrender or appear before the trial court on the date of judgement.
Case Title: M/s Jayapradha Cine Theatre v. Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Case No: Crl. O.P.No.22258 of 2023 & batch
Decided on: 20th October, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Introduction
The Madras High Court ruled that the appellate court’s decision to deny the suspension of the sentence was justified as the accused failed to surrender or appear before the trial court on the date of judgement.
Facts of the Case
In the present case, the first accused, M/s Jayapradha Theatre, and its partner, the fourth accused, are facing legal challenges related to the non-payment of contributions under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act). According to the ESI Act, the petitioners are required to pay both their own and their employees’ contributions; failing to do so is against the law. Orders for the recovery of delinquent payments were issued under Section 45-A of the ESI Act in tandem with Section 85(a) prosecution, which was sanctioned by Section 85(i)(b) of the Act.
In July 2017, the EIOPs filed by the petitioners to contest the Section 45-A orders were dismissed. Given the petitioners’ obvious disinterest in paying their contributions, the Employees Insurance Court recommended extending the case in order to postpone the filing of criminal charges. Sections 85(a) and 85(i)(b) of the ESI Act were found guilty after the trial, which took place before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, concluded after eighteen years. Six months of jail time and penalties were part of the sentences imposed.
The petitioners filed criminal appeals disputing these rulings and asking for a sentence suspension without giving up. On November 9, 2023, the Principal District and Session Judge denied the suspension applications. The second petitioner’s sudden sickness prevented him from appearing in court before the judgement date, which is the basis for the contestation of the dismissal order. In support of the set-aside of convictions and penalties, the petitioners assert that they paid the contribution amount during the trial.
In response, the respondents claimed that there has been a pattern of late payments and remittances, with only one month before judgement. It is stated that the amount owed, with interest, as of September 27, 2023, is Rs. 37,68,977. According to the respondents, the petitioners are not eligible for a sentence suspension until this sum is paid. The petitioners contend that the business has been closed for an extended period of time and that no notice or order under Section 45-A was received regarding the case circumstances.
Courts analysis and decision
In this instance, the court ruled that the first petitioner has been proven to have routinely collected the Employee’s Contribution but neglected to remit it with its own contribution. The petitioners have been able to continue the trial for almost eighteen years despite this continuous default, which they achieved through a variety of strategies. The trial Court’s decision appropriately documents the petitioners’ seeming contempt for the legal system. The Corporation’s counter-file draws attention to the deliberate dragging out of the matter, along with a rumored attempt to resolve the conflict through the Amnesty Scheme.
The Court agreed with the appeal court’s judgement to deny the petitions asking for the accused’s sentence to be suspended. And observed that the respondents who did not show up in court on the day of judgement or turn themselves up to the Appellate Court during the sentence suspension hearing, have a history that supports the denial of these Criminal Original Petitions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla