PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR QUILON Vs. PARVATHI MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed by the Provident Fund inspector, Quilon who was the complainant, from the judgments of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Quilon in four cases acquitting the accused-respondents. The first accused is a Company, and accused 2 to5 were its directors. The four complaints were of the same pattern and were instituted under the Employees' Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act ("the Act" ). The Company runs a Mill which is an establishment within the Act. In brief the complaints alleged that the accused were guilty of the offences under S. 14 (1a), S. 14 (2), S. 14 (2a) and s. 14a (1) of the Act in that they had not paid the employer's and employee's contributions to the Provident Fund in respect of the employees of first accused-Company together with the administrative charges for the periods specified. Each complaint related to three offences and the total twelve offences were stated to have been committed on 15-5-1971 and the 15th of the succeeding months till 15-5-1972 except October 1971. The complaints were brought on 9 91975 on the strength of the sanction granted by the Provident Fund Commissioner on 13-7-1975 under S. 14ac. Under Para. 30 and 38 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 the employer's and employee's contributions as well as the administrative charges for every month have to be paid within fifteen days of the close of the month (That explains the statement in the complaints that the offences were committed on the 15th of the months mentioned, the liability being related to the respective proceeding months ). Accused 2 to 5 were sought to be made liable on the footing that as directors they were in charge of and responsible to the Company and that the offences were committed with their consent or connivance or were attributable to their neglect.

(2.) THE accused pleaded not guilty and before evidence was recorded they raised an objection that ex facie the complaints were barred by limitation. THE court heard it as a preliminary question with the consent of the prosecution, the prosecutor agreeing that if the question was answered in favour of the accused, they would have to be acquitted. Although the reasoning of the court below is not quite clear, it upheld the defence of limitation and by separate judgments acquitted the accused.

(3.) WHILE counsel for the respondents contend that if they had contravened the Act and the Scheme, the relative offences occurred on the dates in 1971 and 1972 mentioned in the complaints and that consequently the prosecutions which were started only in 1975 are clearly time-barred the learned Additional Central Government Pleader maintains that the offences were "continuing offences" within S. 472 of the Code and that as the offences were not committed once and for all on those dates but continued every day the accused defaulted the payment of contributions and administrative charges the bar of S. 468 was excluded.