A company is primarily liable for an offence committed under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Other persons can be held vicariously liable only if they were in charge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its day-to-day business.

N.C. Mukherji. J – These 17 Rules arise on 17 applications for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the petition of complaints were filed out of time and also on other grounds We classify the Rules under two heads. In the first group, we place Criminal Revision Nos. 2249 to 2262 of 1979. In these 14 Rules the contention of the petitioner, amongst others, is that the petitions of complaint have been filed out of time. Fourteen cases, namely, C/311 to C/324 were started for non-deposit of Provident Fund amounts for the months of October. 1973 to November 1974. The petitions of complaint in all the cases were filed on 10.1.76. Relying on the provisions of S. 468(2)(b) of the Code it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitions of complaint in all these cases ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the alleged offence. In support of his contention, Mr De, learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to a Bench decision reported in 1978 CHN 293 (M/s. Wire Machinery Manufacturing Corpn. Ltd. & Ors). In this case. first of all. it was held that under paragraph 38 of the Scheme the infringement for the failure to deposit within 15 days of the close of every month occurs on the close of fifteenth day of a month and is complete on the employer failing to make the payment by that date. Once the defaults were made the offences were committed once for all and became complete on the close of the due date As such there would not be any ingredient of continuance in the offence to make it a continuing offence”. As regards limitation, it was held that “the complaints having been tiled beyond a period of one year they are time barred m accordance with S. 468(2)(b) of the Code and the cognizance taken on the basis of such complaints are without jurisdiction”. Admittedly, in these 14 cases the petitions of complaint have been filed on 10.1.76 and the alleged offence being for the period from October, 1973 to November, 1974 it must be said that the complaints were filed beyond the period of limitation. Mr. Harasit Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has nothing to say with regard to this legal position and concedes that these 14 applications should succeed on the ground of limitation.

2. We classify Criminal Revision Nos. 2263 to 2265 of 1979 under the second group. These Rules arise out of cases being C/325 to C/327 of 1976. These cases were filed for the alleged offences for the months of December, 1974, January, 1975 and February, 1975. In all these cases, the petitions of complaint were filed on 10.1.76. That being so, the petitions were tiled within the prescribed time. In these three Rules Mr. De contends that for alleged violation of non-payment of the amount of Provident Fund, the Company is only responsible. According to the provisions of S. 14A (1)(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Company Can be held liable; otherwise for the alleged offence committed by a Company simply because some persons are Directors, they cannot be held liable. The petitioner has been made a party simply because he is one of the Directors of the Company. In support of his contention, Mr. De first relies on a Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 2162 (Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.N. Mehta & anr). This was a case under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Provisions of S. 23C(1) and (2) of the said Act are almost similar to the provisions of S. 14A(1) & (2) of the present Act. It has been held in this case that “the expression “person in charge” occurring in the Section means a person who is in over all control of the day to day business of the Company or Firm”. Mr. Dc next relies on a Bench decision of this Court reported in 1978 CHN 336 (M/s. Mahalderam Tea Estate private Limited & Ors. v. D.N. Prodhan & Anr). In this case, it has been held that “under S. 14A of the Act (meaning Employees Provident Fund Act), a Company is m