Allahabad High Court
REGIONAL PROVEDENT FUND COMMISSIONERversusRAJA RAM JAIPURIYA AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court confirmed the trial court's acquittal of the Managing Director and Manager and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner appealed against the trial court's acquittal of the Managing Director and Manager of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd., who had been tried alongside the company and its occupier for an alleged violation of Section 14(1A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The trial court had convicted the company and its occupier but acquitted the two senior officials. The appeal was complicated by the unavailability of trial court records and the unknown whereabouts of the accused, as the mill had been under government possession since 1978. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent (State of UP v. Abhay Raj Singh), held that when reconstruction of the record is impossible and a retrial is not feasible, the original acquittal must stand. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The trial court records were unavailable, making reconstruction of the case impossible.
- Whether a retrial could be ordered in the absence of essential records and the accused's whereabouts.
- Whether the acquittal of the senior officials should be upheld despite procedural difficulties.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- acquittal
- reconstruction of records
- retrial
- Employees Provident Fund Act
- procedural law
Judgment
Reserved on 8.12.2025
Delivered on 19.3.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1347 of 1985
Regional Provedent Fund Commissioner
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Raja Ram Jaipuriya And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Mohiley
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., R.N.Bhalla, V.B.Singh
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for
State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 & 2.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgement
passed by C.M.M. Kanpur in complaint case no. 3601 of 1977 ( State vs.
Swadeshi Cotton Mill Co. Ltd. and others) . By the said impugned
judgement, respondent Swadeshi Cotton Mill Company and its occupier
accused K.P. Agrawal were held guilty u/s 14(1A) of Employees Provident
Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/-. However, respondents/accused- Sri Raja Ram Jaipuria, Managing
Director and Sri S.P. Jaggi, Manager of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. were
acquitted. Appellant has challenged the acquittal of respondents in this
appeal.
3. At the very outset, Appeal of co-accused Sri Raja Ram Jaipuria (Criminal
Appeal No. 1347 of 1985) has already been abated.
4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this appeal was filed in the year
1982 and leave to appeal was granted in May 1985. Record of trial Court
was summoned by this Court in year 1982. As per the letter dated
10.10.2024, the District Judge of Kanpur Nagar informed that Trial Court
records were neither available in the Record Room of the District Court nor
in the record room of the Collectorate in Kanpur Nagar. CMM Kanpur vide
letter dated 22-03-2021 informed that whereabouts of respondents/ accused
are unknown as Swadeshi Cotton Mill is in possession of Government of
CRLA No. 1347 of 1985
2
India since 1978. Current Manager and other staff of Mill are unaware of his
whereabouts.
5. Considering the foregoing circumstances, it was felt that this appeal be
decided in light of law decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP v.
Abhay Raj Singh, (2004) 4 SCC 6, wherein the Supreme Court stated that
"if the High Court finds that reconstruction was not practicable but by
ordering retrial interest of justice could be better served ? adopt that course
and direct retrial ? and from that stage law shall take its normal course. If
only reconstruction was not possible to facilitate High Court to hear and
dispose of the appeals and the further course of retrial and fresh adjudication
by Sessions Court was also rendered impossible due to loss of vitally
important basic records ? in that case and situation only, the direction given
in the impugned judgment shall operate and the matter shall stand closed".
6. Hence, the impugned judgment of trial court acquitting the respondents is
confirmed. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
March 19, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…