https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103741 The term "employer" in Explanation 2 to Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code must be given its ordinary meaning, and it cannot be expanded by borrowing the definition of "principal employer" from the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 unless the Penal Code expressly incorporates that scheme. On that footing, where the company is itself the employer, the company-not its directors-is the person entrusted with employees' deducted contributions. Directors are not treated as employers merely because they manage the company's affairs, so criminal liability for default in remittance of the deducted amount does not attach to them on that basis. en-us Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103741 The term "employer" in Explanation 2 to Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code must be given its ordinary meaning, and it cannot be expanded by borrowing the definition of "principal employer" from the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 unless the Penal Code expressly incorporates that scheme. On that footing, where the company is itself the employer, the company-not its directors-is the person entrusted with employees' deducted contributions. Directors are not treated as employers merely because they manage the company's affairs, so criminal liability for default in remittance of the deducted amount does not attach to them on that basis. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103741