Time Limit For Filing Chargesheet+Occupier

An FIR was lodged by PF Commissioner against an employee of a BIFR company under BIFR (I was the Chief Executive but not a board member). The FIR was for a default in payment of PF dues for a period covering even that prior to my engagement. I was treated as the "Occupier" in PF records. Police filed a case in 1998, and the magistrate's court keeps giving date after date on its own for the last 13 years. I have not sought a date even once. So far, a charge sheet has not been filed. (No case has been filed against any board member.) I retired in 1999 and am now 71 years old.

Questions:
1. Can the dismissal of the case be sought on the grounds of the delay in filing the charge sheet?
2. Can the dismissal of the case be sought on the grounds that an employee is not a board member and cannot be an "occupier"?

It may be mentioned that all dues have since been paid as directed by BIFR. When I asked the advocate, he suggests letting it go on, why wake the sleeping dog? Delay will be to your benefit eventually. But I have to travel 50 km to attend the court every three months or so.

Dear,

Your lawyer's advice is appropriate. Delay will work in favor of the accused person. Considering your age as a Senior Citizen, the time lag, and the subsequent settlement of the dues, you can also try quashing of the charge sheet when filed under Section 482 CR PC. Also, if you find it too difficult, you can go in for quashing of the FIR itself. All this before the concerned High Court.

With Regards

Thank you for your response. The complaint has been filed by the PF office for the "offence under 406/409 and explanation added to 405 of IPC for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of PF contributions deducted from the wages of the employees.

I am not in disagreement with my lawyer and have been patiently attending court for the last 13 years. The question that arises in my mind is: are the law-enforcing agencies required to be bound by any time limit to specify the charges through framing a charge sheet? Had I not availed of the bail provision, I believe the charge sheet would have to be framed within 90 days. Can the case be dragged indefinitely since I am on bail?

On the question of the "occupier", I came across an article by Sachin Mehta of AZB & associates in Mint dated March 9, 2009. This article quotes a case of JK Industries and others vs. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and others (Supreme Court 1996). Here, the Honorable Supreme Court states that "where a company owns or runs a factory, it is the company that has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory and would, therefore, be the occupier. However, since the company is a legal abstraction, it can act only through its directors... the word ultimate means last or final... There is a vast difference between a person having ultimate control... and one who has immediate or day-to-day control over the affairs of the factory... Essentially, the law as declared by the Supreme Court was that a company cannot nominate any one of its employees or officers, except a director of the company, as the occupier of the factory."

My lawyer will wait for the opportune moment to use this information. But, the question still remains whether this can be a ground for quashing the FIR or case?

10.09.10

Thanks for the response.

Can a court keep on giving dates indefinitely without framing charges? Is there no provision of law which stipulates any time limit?

The question of the occupier was discussed in an article by Sachin Mehta some time back. It quoted a Supreme Court judgment of 1996 (JK Industries & others vs Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers & others). The article said post Bhopal, the Supreme Court frowns upon the practice of owners naming an employee as the occupier and escaping the legal responsibility. The judgment differentiated between the control of day-to-day operations and "ultimate" control. The article concluded, "Essentially, the law as declared by the Supreme Court was that a company cannot nominate anyone of its employees or officers, except a director of the company, as the occupier of the factory."

So the second question is, can this be a ground for seeking the quashing of the FIR?

niranjan39;1264780]10.09.10

Thanks for the response.

Can a court keep on giving dates indefinitely without framing charges? Is there no provision of law that stipulates any time limit?

On the question of the occupier, it was discussed in an article by Sachin Mehta some time back. It quoted a Supreme Court judgment of 1996 (JK Industries & others vs Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers & others). The article said post Bhopal, the Supreme Court frowns upon the practice of owners naming an employee as the Occupier and escaping the legal responsibility. The judgment differentiated between control of day-to-day operations and "ultimate" control. The article concluded, "Essentially, the law as declared by the Supreme Court was that a company cannot nominate any one of its employees or officers, except a director of the company, as the occupier of the factory."

So the second question is can this be a ground for seeking quashing of the FIR? [/QUOTE]

There is a time limitation provided under CrPC. The limitation period is equivalent to the corresponding punishment period. Suppose the prescribed punishment for a specific offense is 7 years, then the taking cognizance of the matter, the limitation period shall be 7 years.

The other fact in your case is also, I think, control and supervision of business. If you are not the active Director and have no control, I would advise you to try for Quashing FIR under Section 482 of CrPC before the concerned High Court.