Provident fund default complaints fail on limitation and deficient director averments for vicarious liability.

Complaints for default in provident fund deposit were held to be time-barred where the offence was complete on the date of non-deposit and not a continuing offence, so filing beyond the statutory period attracted the limitation bar. The complaints were also found deficient against a director because criminal vicarious liability under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 requires specific averments that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business. Bare description as a director was insufficient, and proceedings were quashed on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaints in the first group of cases were barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the complaints against the petitioner, as a director, disclosed the necessary ingredients for vicarious liability under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Issue (i): Whether the complaints in the first group of cases were barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The alleged defaults related to non-deposit of provident fund amounts for earlier months, while the complaints were filed after the expiry of the statutory period. The offence was treated as complete on the failure to deposit within the prescribed time and not as a continuing offence. On that footing, the complaints filed beyond one year attracted the limitation bar.

Conclusion: The complaints in the first group were barred by limitation and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaints against the petitioner, as a director, disclosed the necessary ingredients for vicarious liability under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Analysis: Liability of persons other than the company could arise only if the complaint contained material showing that they were in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the company's day-to-day business. The complaint only described the petitioner as a director and did not contain the necessary averments showing day-to-day control or overall management. Such bare assertions were insufficient to fasten criminal liability on a director.

Conclusion: The complaints did not make out a case against the petitioner, and the proceedings against him were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenges succeeded on both limitation and lack of foundational averments for director liability, resulting in quashing of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint for default in provident fund compliance must be filed within the statutory limitation period where the offence is complete on the date of default, and a director cannot be prosecuted vicariously unless the complaint specifically alleges that he was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's day-to-day business.

---