JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :—These appeals raise a question of general public importance as to whether failure to pay the employers contribution to the Provident Fund is continuing offence. If it is, no question of limitation can arise. On the other hand, if it is not a continuing offence, the complaint for nonpayment of the contribution has to be filed within the stated period.

2. The facts of these appeals vary from case to case but such variation is inconsequential for our purpose. We will therefore state the facts of a representative group of these cases which comprises Criminal Appeals Nos. 407-418 of 1979.

3. On August 22, 1975 the Provident Fund Inspector, Indore, Madhya Pradesh filed six complaints against the appellants and respondent 2, charging them with non-payment of employers contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 19 of 1952 (referred to herein as "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. 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. That exemption was granted on the condition that the Company will transfer monthly collections of the Provident Fund of workers, inclusive of the employers contribution, to be Board of Trustees of the Fund within 15 days of the close of each month. The allegation against the accused, about which there is no factual dispute, is that they did not pay the employers contribution to the Fund from February, 1970 to June, 1971.

4. At the commencement of the trial, the accused filed applications contending 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 complaints, the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaints. Those applications were rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate by an order dated Nov. 29, 1976 on the ground that the offences of which the accused were charged are continuing offences and therefore no question of limitation could arise.

5. The accused filed revision applications in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the order passed by the trial Court. By a judgment dated July 6, 1977 a learned single Judge of the High Court upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the revision petitions. The Directors of the Company who, along with the Company, were arraigned as the accused have filed these appeals by special leave, against the judgment of the High Court.

6. By a notification dated April 22, 1971 the Company was declared as a Relief Undertaking under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. As a result of the notification, the administration and control of the Company are vested in an Administrator appointed by the Central Government under that Act. Later, the Company was notified as a Sick Textile Undertaking under the First Schedule to the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, which came into force on April 1, 1974.

7. The complaints for non-payment of the employers contribution to the Provident Fund were filed against the accused under Section 14 (2-A) of the Act which reads thus :

"Section 14. Penalties

xx xx xx xx

(2-A). Whoever contravenes or makes default in complying with any provision of this Act or of any condition subject to which exemption was granted under S. 17 shall, if no other penalty is elsewhere provided by or under this Act for such contravention or non-compliance, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

The allegation against the accused is that by not paying their contribution to the Provident Fund, they committed default in complying with the condition subject to which exemption was granted to them under Section 17 of the Act fro