Sentenced for cheating under EPF Act too

Not just you and me with CashBack - he cheated his workers too !

From http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/206420/

M/S.Ram Bahadur Thakur Limited vs J.Thulaseedharan Pillai, ... on 22 December, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 209 of 2004(A)

1. M/S.RAM BAHADUR THAKUR LIMITED,

... Petitioner

2. C.B.SHARMA, CHAIRMAN, M/S.RAM BAHADUR

3. MANOJ MOHAN SHARMA, DIRECTOR,

4. S.M.SHARMA, DIRECTOR,

Vs

1. J.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, ENFORCEMENT

... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA

For Respondent :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

Dated :22/12/2009

O R D E R

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J.

------------------------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. 209 of 2004

------------------------------------------------------ Dated: DECEMBER 22, 2009

ORDER


The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.T.Case No.717/1996 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Peerumedu. They, along with accused No.8, are convicted under sec.14(2A) read with sec.6A(2) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the EPF Act) read with paragraphs 9 and 10 of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971. They, along with accused No.8, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under sec.14(2A) of the EPF Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Proceedings against accused Nos.5 to 7 were dropped by the trial court as per order in CMP 5227/1999 dated 19.2.1999. On appeal by accused Nos.1 to 4 as Crl.A.17/2001 of Addl.District and Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, the lower appellate court altered the charge into sec.41(d) of Family Pension Scheme and confirmed the substantive sentence, but reduced the fine to Rs.4000/-. The appeal by the 8th accused as Crl.A.11/2001 was allowed by the lower appellate court and he was found not guilty and acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Accused Nos.1 to 4 have now come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence.