HARGOVIND GANGABISAN BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha, in Criminal Case No. 213 of 1981, rejecting the application of the present applicant Accused No. 1 for dropping the proceedings initiated against him as barred by limitation under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, lodged a First Information Report on 22nd December, 1976 against the present applicant and other co-accused. It was alleged that the applicant accused and other co-accused, in their capacity as Directors of Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd., have deducted the amounts from the salaries/wages of the employees towards the contribution to the provident fund, but have defaulted to deposit the same to the Board of Trustees as required under the notification issued by the Central Government from time to time.

(3.) After the investigation was completed, the charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court on 27-7-1981 under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant accused and other co accused appeared before the trial Court on receipt of the summons. Even before framing of charges, the applicant and either co-accused persons filed application before the trial Court on 29-11-1983 raising objection on the ground of limitation under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was contended, inter alia, that the charge sheet has been filed for an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code after almost five years after the first information report was lodged, that the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of three years, and that the limitation prescribed for taking cognizance is only three years. Under the circumstances, it was contended, that the trial Court could not take cognizance beyond the period of limitation and that the prosecution was liable to be dropped.