STATE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND Vs. PRAJATANTRA PRACHAR SAMITI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common point of law arises in all these appeals. Admittedly, Respondent No. 1 is the proprietor and Respondent No. 2 is the Secretary of the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti. Criminal Appeal No. 131/77 relates to non -payment of the administrative charges for the period from October, 1974 to December, 1974; Criminal Appeal No. 132/77 relates to nonpayment of provident fund contribution for the period from January, 1975 to March, 1975; Criminal Appeal No. 133/77 relates to non -payment of administrative charges for the period from April, 1975 to May, 1975; Criminal Appeal No. 134/77 relates to non -payment of administrative charges for the period from January, 1975 to March, 1975; Criminal Appeal No. 135/77 relates to non -payment of administrative charges for the period from January, 1975 to March,1975; Crime -idea Appeal No. 261/77 relates to non -payment of provident fund dues and family pension fund for the period from October, 1974 to December, 1974; Criminal Appeal No. 262/77 relates to non -payment of administrative charges for the period from August, 1974 to September, 1974; Criminal Appeal No. 263/77 relates to non -payment of provident fund contribution for September, 1974; Criminal Appeal No. 264/77 relates to non -payment of provident fund dues for May, 1974, July, 1974 and August, 1974; and Criminal Appeal No. 265/77 relates to non -payment of administrative charges for the period from May, 1974 to July, 1974. It would thus appear that the Respondents were prosecuted under Sections 14 and 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act and the Family Pension Fund Act for non -payment of provident fund dues, family pension and administrative charges for different periods. There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondents have not paid the contribution and the administrative charges and have contended that it was the Public Relation Department of the Government who bad to clear up the dues out of the dues to be paid to the Respondents. The Appellant was also aware of this fact and has attached the money and has also realised the same.

(2.) ON the undisputed facts and circumstances stated above the only question canvassed and on which the Courts below have acquitted the Respondents is that the prosecution is barred by time under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) THE question for consideration is whether the offence committed by the Respondents is a continuing one, or a completed offence. If the offence is a continuing one, then the period of limitation of one year, as contemplated under Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure will have no application in view of the provisions of Section 472, Code of Criminal Procedure.