The Calcutta High Court holds that non-filing of returns under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme is not a continuing offence, reaffirms that prosecution is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC in such cases, and quashes related proceedings; this decision follows existing precedent and carries binding authority for subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/3535/2017 of OM PRAKASH SAXENA & ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0515152017 |
| Date of Registration | 02-11-2017 |
| Decision Date | 24-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for coordinate benches and other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior coordinate bench views |
| Type of Law | Criminal law, Labour law (Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) |
| Questions of Law | Whether failure to furnish returns under the EPF Act constitutes a “continuing offence” or is barred by limitation? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
EFPO officer lodged multiple complaints alleging Directors of Bengal Water Proof Ltd. failed to submit monthly returns under the EPF Scheme after company suspended production in 2011. All staff resigned in 2011; provident fund dues were paid from a company-managed trust account. Complaints regarding non-filing were filed 3+ years after the alleged default periods. Petitioners challenged proceedings as time-barred and an abuse of process; opposite party (EPFO) did not contest. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, coordinate benches, and potentially Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None (Affirms existing precedent) |
| Distinguishes | Bhagirath Kanoria (distinguishes between non-payment of PF [continuing offence] and non-filing of returns [not continuing]) |
| Follows | Kartick Chandra Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal; prior Calcutta High Court CRR decisions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that non-filing of Provident Fund returns is not a continuing offence, thus is subject to limitation under Section 468 CrPC.
- Confirms that criminal prosecution cannot be launched or continued for failure to submit returns if the complaint is filed after the limitation period.
- Single complaints should be filed for alleged non-submissions, not multiple, when facts are similar.
- Judicial discipline requires coordinate benches to follow existing precedent unless the matter is placed before a larger bench for reconsideration.
- Lawyers can cite this as binding authority to quash stale PF return prosecution where limitation has lapsed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered whether non-filing of returns under the EPF Act is a continuing offence.
- Cited Bhagirath Kanoria, where the Supreme Court held that non-payment of employer’s contribution is a continuing offence, but non-filing of returns is not.
- Relied on decisions of coordinate benches (e.g., Kartick Chandra Das) that, where establishments had closed and all employee dues were settled, requiring further returns was futile and continuing proceedings was an abuse of process.
- Examined the limitation periods prescribed by Section 468 CrPC: for offences punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment, the maximum period is three years from default.
- Complaints in these cases were filed after expiry of limitation; thus, Magistrate’s cognizance was bad in law.
- Reemphasised the importance of following coordinate bench decisions for judicial discipline, unless referred to a larger bench for doubt or reconsideration.
- Also noted an EPFO ad hoc committee recommending review and withdrawal of prosecutions related to non-filing of returns.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Argued that complaints regarding non-filing of PF returns are not continuing offences, and are thus barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC.
- Production had ceased in 2011 and all employees resigned; all provident fund dues were settled through a trust account as per exemption.
- High Court’s earlier interim orders prevented PF authorities from demanding certain returns.
- No specific role attributed to individual directors by the complainant.
- Multiple cases filed for similar defaults which could have been consolidated.
- Cognizance taken mechanically without application of mind or compliance with Section 202 CrPC.
Respondent (EPFO / State):
The opposite party did not contest the instant applications.
Factual Background
An officer of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization lodged complaints against Directors of Bengal Water Proof Ltd. for failing to submit mandated monthly returns under the EPF Scheme during various periods after the company had suspended production in 2011. All employees resigned that year and received dues from a trust-managed provident fund. The complaints were filed between June and July 2016, more than three years after the alleged defaults. Petitioners challenged the prosecution as barred by limitation and an abuse of the court’s process. The respondents did not oppose the quashing petitions.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which bars cognizance after limitation periods (up to three years for relevant offences).
- Analysed provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, specifically submission of monthly returns vs. payment of contributions.
- Cited Supreme Court precedent to distinguish between acts constituting continuing offences and those not.
- The Court found no statutory basis for treating non-filing of returns as continuing offences, limiting prosecution to within three years of default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and follows established High Court and Supreme Court precedent on limitation and the nature of the offence under the EPF Act.