Madras High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of Actress Jayaprada Over Non-Payment Of ESI Dues, Asks Her To Surrender And Make Deposit

Jayapradha and other partners of the Jayaprada Cine Theatre were sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000 in April this year by a Metropolitan Magistrate Court. Though they had sought for suspension of sentence, the Principal District and Sessions Judge had dismissed the applications.

Justice G Jayachandran observed that the appellate court was right in refusing to suspend the sentence when the accused had not surrendered or appeared before the trial court on the date of judgment. Looking into the history of the case and the conduct of the case, the court observed that the track record of the case justified the order.

The court however added that the bail applications/ application seeking suspension of sentence could be considered if the accused surrendered before the appellate court and made a deposit of 20 lack rupees.

“The Lower Appellate Court shall not entertain petition for bail/suspension of sentence, unless the pre-condition of deposit is complied and the accused/petitioner physically appears. To enable the petitioners to satisfy the pre-condition (deposit of Rs.20 lakhs and appearance in person) 15 days time from today is granted,” the court observed.

Jayaprada was found guilty of the commission of offence U/s. 85 (a), 85 (i) (b) of the Employees State Insurance Act for failing to comply with the statutory obligations of payment of contributions due to the Employees State Insurance Corporation in the exercise of Powers conferred under Section 45-A.

The Metropolitan Magistrate had observed that since the gravity of the offence was serious, no leniency could be considered and thus there was no alternative to imposing a sentence. The court had also noted that since the Employees State Insurance Act was a socio-welfare legislation that was enacted for the benefit of employees, the crime committed in the present case was a socio-economic offence and was thus heinous and deplorable.

The petitioners submitted that the only reason that one of the partners could not attend the court on the date of the judgment was due to a sudden illness. He added that after recovery, when the appeal was filed along with an application to suspend the sentence, the appellate court had erroneously dismissed the petition stating that there was a conviction warrant against the absconding convicts and they had not surrendered before the court. It was also submitted that the dues were paid during the pendency of the trial and thus the order of conviction itself was liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, the standing counsel for the ESIC submitted that though the liability commenced in the year 1991, the contribution was paid only a month before the judgment, after a delay of several years. He submitted that the remittance of the amount, after a delay of 18 years without the accrued interest and the non-appearance of the accused on the date of judgment clearly showed their attitude.

The court agreed with the submission and refused to suspend the sentence.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.Abdul Hameed, Senior Counsel for Mrs.Revathi Manivannan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.T.N.C.Kaushick Standing Counsel/Spl.P.P.for ESI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

Case Title: M/s Jayapradha Cine Theatre v. Employees State Insurance Corporation,

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.22258 of 2023 & batch