https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199797 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. en-us Tue, 01 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:50:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199797 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199797