1978 (3) TMI 212 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Whether a complaint can be lodged and cognizance taken after a period of one year from the date of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioners were prosecuted under various sections of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act based on complaints filed by the provident fund inspector. The main issue was whether a complaint could be lodged and cognizance taken after one year from the date of the alleged contravention.

2. The argument was made that under Section 14(2A) of the Act, no court can take cognizance of an offence after one year from the date of default. The complaints were instituted more than one year after the payments became due, rendering the cognizance taken by the Magistrate without jurisdiction.

3. The interveners argued that the offence under the Scheme was complete on the sixteenth day of the month following the default, and it was not a continuing offence. They referenced a Supreme Court decision to support their position.

4. Another argument presented was that due to an amendment in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, a defaulting employer could be prosecuted under Section 406 or 409, making the default a one-time offence and not a continuing one.

5. The public prosecutor contended that the offence under the Act was a continuing one, attracting Section 472 of the Code, and referred to provisions imposing penalties for continuous defaults by the employer.

6. The court analyzed previous case law and the nature of continuing offences, emphasizing that an offence is not continuing unless there is an ingredient of continuance. The court concluded that once the defaults were made, the offences were committed once and for all.

7. Section 14C of the Act provided mechanisms for penalizing defaulting employers and did not make the initial infringement a continuing offence. The court clarified the distinction between the default itself and the penalties for non-compliance.

8. The Explanation to Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, added by an amendment, allowed prosecution for criminal breach of trust. The court noted that complaints under the Penal Code for defaults under the Act or Scheme would raise the issue of non-applicability of the limitation period.

9. Ultimately, the court held that the complaints filed beyond one year were time-barred under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code, and the cognizance taken on such complaints was without jurisdiction. The rules were made absolute, and proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

10. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners in the cases covered by the rules.