AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 186 wordsI.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)
In these 17 petitions Nos. 62 to 78 of 1985, the respective complaints filed by the Provident Fund Inspector have been dismissed by the trial Magistrate on the ground that the same were barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This conclusion of the learned Magistrate is totally erroneous in view of the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagirath Kanoria and others v. State of M.P., 1984(2) Recent CR 393 : AIR 1984 SC 1638 , to the following effect :
"Nonpayment of the employer''s contribution to the Provident Fund before the due date, is a continuing offence and, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 cannot have any application. The offence will be governed by Section 472 according to which, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues."
In the light of the abovenoted authoritative pronouncement, the impugned orders in these petitions cannot obviously be sustained and are set aside.
JUDGMENT accordingly.