Purna Chandra Barooah, J. - (1.) The petitioner in all these thirty four Rules is a Director of Messrs, Albion Plywood Limited of 18A, Brabourne Road, Calcutta-1, The opposite party No. 1, D. K. Bhattacharjee, a Provident Fund Inspector, West Bengal filed petitions of the complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the aforesaid Company and its Directors including the petitioner alleging commission of offences under Ss. 14(IA), 14(2), 14AC I) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with paragraph 76(b) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme. Along with the complaints an application under S. 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was filed for condoning the delay in filing the complaints beyond a period of one year from the date of default. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate transferred the case to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court for disposal.
(2.) By orders passed on January 25, 1977 Shri A. K. Chetterjee, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta held that in view of the provision of sub-s. 2(b) of the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 the question of limitation does not arise since non-payment of Provident Fund dues is undoubtedly an economic offence and ordered the issue of summons against the accused persons including the petitioner. This order of the learned Magistrate is the subject matter of these Rules.
(3.) The Economic Offences ( Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 provided for the inapplicability of the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to certain economic offences. Section 2 of the said Act lays down that the aforesaid Chapter of the Code would not apply to any offences punishable under any of the enactments specified in the Schedule of the Act or any other offence which under the provisions of the Code may be tried along with such offences. It is clear that the said Act is not meant to be illustrative because in the Schedule the Acts which have been taken out of the purview of Chapter 36 of the Code have been clearly mentioned. The learned Magistrate could not take upon himself the function of the legislature and import into the Schedule an Act which was not there. Therefore, the learned Magistrates finding that the question of limitation does not arise in the present case as it is an economic offence is not tenable in law and cannot be supported.;