The Calcutta High Court has clarified that failure to submit returns under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme is **not** a continuing offence. Consequently, prosecutions initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 of the CrPC are barred. This judgment upholds prior coordinate bench decisions and provides binding authority for similar cases concerning offences of non-filing of PF returns.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/3051/2017 of OM PRAKASH SAXENA & ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR |
| CNR | WBCHCA0453142017 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2017 |
| Decision Date | 24-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms previous coordinate bench judgments on the same issue |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Labour Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the failure to submit returns under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 is not a continuing offence. Accordingly, taking cognizance of such offences after the expiry of the period stipulated in Section 468 CrPC is barred by limitation. The judgment relied on existing Supreme Court and coordinate bench Calcutta High Court precedents, emphasizing judicial discipline and the futility of continuing proceedings where all dues are paid and the establishment is closed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Prosecutions were launched by the EPF authority against company directors for non-filing of returns during specific periods after the company had ceased operations and employees had been paid all dues. Complaints were filed beyond three years from the alleged default periods. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Existing Supreme Court and earlier Calcutta High Court (coordinate bench) rulings (e.g., Kartick Chandra Das; CRR 3262/2017 etc.) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court has explicitly clarified that failure to file returns under the EPF Scheme is not a continuing offence.
- Prosecutions for such non-filing that commence beyond the three-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC are legally barred.
- Judicial discipline requires subsequent coordinate benches to follow earlier decisions unless they expressly raise a doubt for reference to a larger bench.
- Where a company is closed, all PF dues are settled, and employee claims are resolved, insistence on procedural returns is futile.
- This decision strengthens defence arguments against prosecutions based on non-filing of returns when no substantive prejudice or ongoing default exists.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court distinguished between offences under the EPF Act that are “continuing” (e.g., non-payment of employer’s PF contribution) and those that are not (e.g., non-filing of statutory returns).
- It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhagirath Kanoria & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors., which held non-payment to be a continuing offence, while several High Courts have found non-filing of returns is not.
- The court referred to and followed multiple coordinate bench decisions of the Calcutta High Court (including Kartick Chandra Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal; CRR 3262/2017; CRR 3764/2017; CRR 3882/2017) quashing similar prosecutions as time-barred.
- Section 468 CrPC prescribes a bar to cognizance after three years for such offences.
- In the present cases, all complaints were lodged well beyond three years from the respective default periods in returns, and hence, taking cognizance was impermissible and amounted to abuse of process.
- Judicial discipline was emphasized—subsequent benches are to follow coordinate bench rulings unless doubted for reference to a larger bench.
- The court also took note of recommendations by the EPF authority’s 2022 ad-hoc committee supporting withdrawal of such prosecutions related to procedural defaults.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The company had ceased operations in 2011, and all employees had resigned and received PF settlements.
- A trust was formed for provident fund management as per an official exemption, and all payments due were concluded.
- Non-filing of returns did not prejudice any party, and continuing proceedings is an abuse of process.
- Multiple proceedings could have been combined into a single complaint.
- The trial court failed to consider limitations and roles of individual accused before taking cognizance.
- Pending writ and interim order against assessment justified the non-filing of certain returns.
Respondent (State/EPF Authority)
- The opposite party did not contest the applications.
Factual Background
The EPF enforcement officer filed multiple complaints against the directors of a company (Bengal Waterproof Ltd.) for the non-filing of provident fund returns for various months after the company’s production had ceased in 2011 and all employees had exited and received their dues. The company had received a statutory exemption and managed PF settlements through a trust. The complaints were all filed more than three years after the alleged default periods.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prescribes limitation periods for taking cognizance of offences, with a cap of three years for offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years.
- The court held, relying on prevailing legal authority, that failure to file returns under the EPF Act is not a continuing offence; thus, limitation begins at the date of default, not from when the offence is discovered or remedied.
- Taking cognizance after this period is barred by statute.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The ruling reaffirms previous Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions on this legal point.