S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The three primarily significant issues, which have come to the fore in this reference to the Full Bench, may well be formulated in the terms following :-

(i) Whether the failure of the employer to deposit the contributions in contravention of Paragraphs 38 and 76 of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, read with Sec.14 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, would be a continuing offence?

(ii) Whether the disputed issues of limitation under Sections 468 to 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can appropriately be raised directly in the High Court for the quashing of proceedings under Sec. 482 of the said Code?

(iii) Whether a petition of complaint for offences punishable under Sec.14 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, must in terms plead each and every relevant fact and, in particular, the precise number of employees of the prosecuted establishment?

(iv) Whether in the event of its failure to do so, the proceedings would be vitiated on that score alone?

2. Equally at issue is the correctness of the view of the learned single Judge in M/s. United Sports Works V/s. State of Bihar (Criminal Misc. Case No. 102 of 1977 and analogous cases : decided on the 26th April, 1977). Inevitably some ancillary questions which arise would be dealt with in their related context.

3. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the issues of fact and law are common and identical in this set of 21 criminal miscellaneous cases and this judgment would govern all of them. The representative matrix of facts may, therefore, be conveniently noticed from M/s. Kailash Talkies, Barauni, V/s. State of Bihar (Criminal Misc. Case No. 4435 of 1979).

4. The petitioner-firm and its partners and Manager seek the quashing at the very threshold of the complaint filed against them under Sec.14A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Begusarai. Messrs Kailash Talkies is a cinema house, located at Barauni, and it is claimed that the number of persons employed therein has been below 20 and consequently, the petitioner is not an establishment within the meaning of the Act. It is averred that for the first time on the 16th of September, 1975, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, issued a notice (Annexure-1) calling upon Petitioner No. 1 to pay the dues mentioned therein for the period October, 1969 to June, 1975, and to submit the requisite returns immediately. Thereafter, a similar notice (Annexure-2) and other similar notices under the Act were admittedly issued to the petitioners for different periods. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that vide order dated the 26th June, 1976 (Annexure-4), Respondent No. 2 had assessed provident fund dues against the firm ex parte without expressly finding that the establishment employed 20 or more persons. Further, a criminal prosecution had also been launched against the petitioners, vide the petition of complaint (Annexure-3) dated the 18th February, 1977. Later, the Provident Fund Inspector submitted an inspection report of the checking of the accounts of the petitioner-firm up to October. 1977. vide Annexure-5.

5. On the petitioners own showing, they filed returns from time to time, up to June, 1976, though it is their stand that this was done under compulsion. Thereafter, vide Annexure-6 the Provident Fund Inspector issued a letter to the firm requesting them to comply with the inspection report within a fortnight, and, subsequently, the Accounts Officer of the Employees Provident Fund, Bihar, issued a letter dated the 11th July, 1978 (Annexure-7). On the 15th of September, 1978, Respondent No. 2 directed the verification of the provident fund records from January, 1969 to June, 1975, and, on the 7th of May, 1976, the petitioner-firm made payment of the provident f