V K BHATT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD Vs. MANEKCHOWK AND AHMEDABAD MFG COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In aforesaid revision applications a common point has arisen and therefore they are dealt with together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) As the facts are also common it is not necessary to state facts of each case. The short facts are that the complainant-Provident Fund Inspector had filed various complaints against the accused on the allegation that they have failed to pay contributions as stated in the complaints within the prescribed period and have committed offences punishable under secs. 14-A/14(1)(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Act 1952 read with para-76 of the E.P.F. Scheme 1952 The said complaints were filed after obtaining necessary sanction from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

(3.) In the said complaints the accused came out with an application stating that the complaints are time-barred. On behalf of the prosecution it was contended that the offence is a continuing offence and therefore the question of limitation does not arise. It was also submitted that sec. 468 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted but sec. 472 Cr.P.C. would apply to the case. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 2 at Ahmedabad by his order dated 30-9-1978 held that all the above complaints are time barred and that offence was not a continuing offence. He further held that there was no ground for condoning delay accordingly he passed the order of discharge and the proceedings were dropped against the accused who were not served.