1984 (8) TMI 351 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether failure to pay the employers' contribution to the Provident Fund is a continuing offence.
2. Whether the complaint for non-payment of the contribution has to be filed within the stated period of limitation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Continuing Offence

The Supreme Court examined whether the non-payment of the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund constitutes a continuing offence. The appellants were charged with non-payment of contributions from February 1970 to June 1971. The trial court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the offence was continuing, thus no limitation period applied. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that each day the contribution was not paid constituted a fresh offence. The Court referenced several cases to illustrate the concept of a continuing offence, emphasizing that the nature of the offence and the statute's purpose are crucial in determining whether an offence is continuing.

Issue 2: Limitation Period

The appellants argued that the offence was not continuing and thus subject to the limitation period u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the offence of non-payment of the employer's contribution is a continuing offence. Therefore, u/s 472 of the Code, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment during which the offence continues. The Court also noted that u/s 473 of the Code, a court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is necessary in the interests of justice.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming that the offence of non-payment of the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund is a continuing offence. Consequently, the period of limitation prescribed by section 468 of the Code does not apply. The prosecutions were ordered to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law, considering all points together without treating any particular point as preliminary. Appeals dismissed.