REGIONAL P F COMMISSIONER Vs. SARDARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner challenging judgment dated 30th April, 1979, of the Addl. Sessions Judge, whereby the conviction imposed by a Magistrate on Sardari Lal Jain (respondent herein) for the offence under Paragraph 76 (a) of the Employees, Provident Fund Scheme read with Section 14 (2) and Section 14a of Employees' Provident Fund Act (hereinafter called the Act) was set aside.

(2.) MR. Vohra, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset has taken two preliminary objections (1) to the maintainability of the application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, and (2) that the applicationis barred by limitation.-

(3.) FIRST we will take up the point of limitation. We may note that Mr. Vohra in support of his submission that the application is filed beyond the limitation of six months has cited Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, wherein it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the provisions of Section 474 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [equivalent to Section 378 (4) of the Code of 1973] as the provision was a special law within the meaning of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. The said judgment has been distinguished by the Supreme Court in Mangru Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, their Lordships have held that after the amendment of 1963 in the Limitation Act, Section 5 has been ; specifically made applicable by Section 29 (2) of the Act, and therefore the provision can be applied for the purpose of extending the period of limitation prescribed by a special or local law. Thus, there is no force i in the objection raised by Mr. Vohra that the time spent by the complainant in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned-judgment is not to be excluded. We hold that the application under Section 378 (4) i of the Code was filed within the time.