Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Monday, 21 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-08-31 allowed

Amit Vashistha vs Suresh and Another

Bench: 2 — Navin Sinha

In Brief

An Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner filed a complaint against an employee for obstructing proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act and abusing the presiding officer. A magistrate convicted the respondent; the Sessions Judge released him on probation; the High Court acquitted him, holding that Section 7A proceedings are not 'court' proceedings. The Supreme Court held that Section 7A proceedings, being statutorily invested with power to take evidence on oath, constitute 'judicial proceedings' and must be treated consistently under Section 228 IPC and Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. Complaints for obstruction must be filed directly before a magistrate, not before an appellate tribunal. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's order set aside.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Law Provident Fund Criminal Procedure Judicial Proceeding Obstruction of Justice

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login