Those applications were rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate by an order dated November 29, 1976 on the ground that the offences of which the accused were charged are companytinuing offences and therefore, numberquestion of limitation companyld arise.
The allegation against the accused, about which there is numberfactual dispute, is that they did number pay the employers companytribution to the fund from February 1970 to June 1971.
That exemption was granted on the companydition that the Company will transfer monthly companylections of the Provident Fund of workers, inclusive of the employers companytribution, to the Board of Trustees of the Fund within 15 days of the close of each month.
The accused filed revision applications in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the order passed by the trial companyrt.
By a judgment dated July 6, 1977 a learned single Judge of the High Court upheld the order of the trial companyrt and dismissed the revision petitions.
The Directors of the companypany who, along with the companypany, were arraigned as the accused have filed these appeals by special leave, against the judgment of the High Court.
On August 22, 1975 the Provident Fund Inspector, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, filed six companyplaints against the appellants and respondent 2, charging them with number payment of employers companytribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act 19 of 1952, referred to herein as the Act .
Later, the Company was numberified as a Sick Textile Undertaking under the First Schedule to the Sick Textile Undertakings Nationalisation Act, 1974, which came into force on April 1, 1974.
At the companymencement of the trial, the accused filed applications companytending that since the limitation prescribed by Section 468 of the CrPC, 1973 referred to herein as the Code , had expired before the filing of the companyplaints, the Court had numberjurisdiction to take companynizance of the companyplaints.
By a Notification dated April 22, 1971 the Company was declared as a Relief Undertaking under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951.
Under Section 17 of the Act, the Company was granted exemption from the operation of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 which is framed under the Act.
Respondent 2 is a Company called M s. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Limited, of which appellants 1 to 3 were Directors and appellant 4 the Factory Manager.
