Company officer liability under EPF law requires proof of control and responsibility; mere managing director designation is insufficient.

Liability of a company officer under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act arises only where the prosecution proves that the person was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Mere designation as managing director is insufficient without evidence connecting the accused to those statutory requirements. On the materials produced, that foundational proof was absent, and the criminal burden was not discharged. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the managing director for offences under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, was sustainable when the complaint and accompanying documents did not prima facie show that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Analysis: Liability under section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, attaches only to a person who, at the time of the offence, was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The Court held that designation alone as managing director does not automatically establish such responsibility. The materials marked in evidence did not connect the accused to the statutory requirements of section 14A(1), and the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did not displace the absence of proof. The criminal burden remained on the appellant to prove the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, which was not done.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld; the accused was not shown to be criminally liable under section 14A(1).

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution of a company officer under section 14A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the prosecution must prove that the person was actually in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; mere designation as managing director is insufficient.

---