BHAGIRATH KANORIA & ORS. ETC versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 24-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
BHAGIRATH KANORIA & ORS. ETC. 
'· 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. ETC.· 
August 24, 1984 
(Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C. I. AND 0. CmNNAPPA REDDY, J] 
Fmployee1 Provident Fund and Family Peru/on Fund Act 19SZ, Section 14 
and Employee•' ProvUknt Fiord Scheme 19SZ, Paralfrap/i J8. 
Employer1 contribution to Provident Fund-NtJnapaymott on du• datei-. 
Whether a •continuing offence period of limitation pr1JCrlHd in Section 468 and 
473 of th• Cotk of Criminal Procefur1 Code-App/icahl/ityof. 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Sectw"' ./68 tnl 41~/mdnlf 
ojfe~1-
Whot ls-Period of limitation in continuing ojfencu ..,_. •-of. 
Wordr & Phra1<1 : .contimdnz ojfmce-Mean/111 •/. 
The Provident Fund Inspector filed complaint& apinst the 8.ppellants 
Directors and Factory Manager and respondent No.2--COmpany charging 
them with non-payment or employers'" contribution under the Employees• 
Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 19 of 1952, alleging that 
the accused did not pay' the employers contribution to the Fund from 
February 1970 to June 1971. 
·At the commencement of the trial, the accnscd filed applications 
contending that since the limitation prescribed by section 468 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had expired before the filing of the 
complaints, the Court had no jurisdiction to Uke cognizance of the com-
plaitns. These applicatinos were rejected by the Judicial Magistrate on the 
ground that the offences of which the accused were charged arc 'continuing 
offences' and therefore, no question of limitation could arise. This order 
was upheld by tho H:gh Co~rt in the revision applications filed by the 
appellants. 
In the appeals to this Court filed by the Directors of the Company it 
was contended that the offence of non·payment of the employers contribu-
, tion can be committed once and for all on the expiry of fifteen days 
after the close of every month and, therefore, prosecution for that offence 
mnst be launched within tho period of lim'tation provided in section 468 
H 
or the Code. 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
JI, ll:ANORIA Y. M.l'. i!TATB 
627 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD 
1. The orfence or which the appellant• are charged, namely 
non-payment of the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund _before 
the due date, is a 'continuing offence' and, therefore, the 
period of 
limitation prescribed by section 468 or the Code cannot have any applica-
tion. The offence which is alleged against the appellants will be governed 
by section 472 of the Code, according to which, a fresh period of limita-
tion begins to run at every moment of the time during which the offence 
continues. 
[636 D-E) 
2. 
The concept of 'continuin1 offence' does not wipe 
original iuilt. It keeps the contravention alive, day by day._ 
out the 
(636 D] 
S. V. Lachwonl v. Kanchan/a/ C. Parikh and 0th.rs, 1978, Lab. I. C. 868, 
over· ruled • 
3. 
Courts when confronted with provisions which lay down a rule 
of limitation governing prosecutions, in cases or this nature will give due 
weight and consideration to the provisions contained in section 473 of 
the Code. That section is in the nature of an overriding provision accor-
ding to which, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 
Chapter XXXVI of the Code, any' Court may take cognizance of an offence 
after the ~xpiry of the period of tim•tation if, inter alia, it is satisfied 
that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. 
[636 F-G] 
4. 
The expression 'continuing offence' is not defined in the Code 
but that is because expressions which do not have a fixed connotation or 
a static import arc difficult to define. 
The question whether a particular 
offence is a 'continuing offence' must necessarily depend upon the language 
of the statute which creates that offence, the nature of the offence and, 
above all, the purpose which is intended to be achieved by constituting 
the particular act as an orrcncc. 
[632 E, 635 E] 
Stat• of Bihar v Dtokaran N•nlhl, [1973) 1 SCR 1004, explained. 
$. 
The offence of which the ·appellants is charied is the failure to 
pay the employers contribution before the the due date. Considering the 
object and purpose of this provision, which is to ensura the welfare of 
workers, it isimpoSsible to hold that tfie offence is not of a continuing 
nature. 
The appellants were unquestionably liable to pay their contribu-
tion to the Provident Fund before the due date and it was within their 
power to pay as soon after tb.c 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.