MIHIR KUMAR DUTTA Vs. B. MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of 10 (ten) Revision petitions filed against prosecution under Section 14(1)(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner-accused was liable to pay employees' share as well as his own contribution to the Provident Fund for the months of October, 1985 to February, 1986. They had failed. Proceedings for recovery were started against them under Section 8 of the Act. Certificates were issued by the Certificate Officer for the recoveries. The accused-petitioner made payment by challans dated 28.7.1986, 25.3.1987, 13.4.1987, 19.5.1987, 20.6.1987 and lastly 10.9.1987. Thus the last payment pertaining to the default period had been completed by 10.9.1987.

(2.) THE above ten complaints were filed on 26.10.89 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore 24-Parganas (South) and the learned Magistrate took cognizance and directed summons to issue against the accused- petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has come in revision before this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings. The contention of the petitioner of all these cases is that the complaints were filed after the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468(2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prescribes the period of limitation for taking cognizance as one year from the date of offence. The assertion is that although the default for payment of employer's contribution or employee's share of Provident Fund or pension fund or other charges under the Act are a continuing offence but the offence continues only so long as the default continuous. Once the payment is made, the offence remains a post offence and from the date of payment the prosecution must be started within one year as this offences were punishable with imprisonment up six months at the time when they were committed, and even upto the time they continued that is upto September, 1987. It was only w.e.f. Ist March, 1988 that such an offence was made punishable with imprisonment upto three years. Any offence punishable with imprisonment upto six months as was the pre-amendment, would attract provision of limitation for starting prosecution within one year. The assertion is that since more than one year passed before the complaints were filed or cognizance was taken, the Court could not take cognizance due to the bar laid down under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, prayer for quashing prosecution.