PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR Vs. SHAMA BEEDI FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of criminal appeals may be disposed of by a common judgment as the same question arises for consideration in all these appeals. That apart, the parties in all these appeals are also the same.

(2.) The Provident Fund Inspector preferred these appeals against the judgment of the learned I Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Warangal dismissing the complaints on the ground that they are barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The respondents-accused were accordingly acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of the Code. Hence this batch of appeals.

(3.) The appellant herein filed the complaints against the respondents-accused alleging that in spite of several requests and persuasions, the respondents-accused have failed to submit the annual returns in Form 6-A for the years 1978-79 to 1984-85, and thus contravened the paragraph 38(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (for short 'the Scheme'). The appellant herein under those circumstances filed the complaints against the respondents-accused under Sections 14(2), 14-A(1) and 14-A(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') read with para 76(b) of the Scheme.