At the companymencement of the trial, the accused filed applications companytending that since the limitation prescribed by section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.
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.
828 of 1981 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 1st May, 1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl.
315 317 of 1982 Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated the 7th September, 1977 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl.
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.
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 accused filed revision applications in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the order passed by the trial companyrt.
Appeals by Special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th July, 1977 and 12th May, 1978 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl.
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.
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.
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.
By a Notification dated April 22, 1971 the Company was declared as a Relief Undertaking under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951.
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.
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.
857, 851, 853, 858, 852, 850 of 1977 and 1394, 1391, 1395, 1392, 1393 1387 of 1976.
187 of 1977 AND Criminal Appeal Nos.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
WITH Criminal Appeal No.
Case Nos.
Revision No.
