( 1 ) THIS batch of Appeals have been filed by the Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur against the order passed by the 1st Add]. Munsif Magistrate, Chirala in the respective calender cases on different dates acquitting the respondents herein of the charges under Sections 14 (2), 14-A and 14-A (2) of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). The parties in all these appeals being the same and the orders were also passed by the same Magistrate for different periods for non-payment of Provident Fund contributions by the respondents, the petitioner herein launched separate prosecutions under the above provisions of the Act. The Magistrate acquitted the respondents by holding that there is no mens rea on the part of the accused in not paying the contributions and the contributions could not be paid because of the circumstances prevailing then in the mill in question are beyond their control i. e. , the mill was running in huge losses. As far as the 2nd respondent is concerned the Court below went a step ahead and acquitted him by holding that the prosecution was launched against him without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 197 Cr. P. C. he being a public servant. He has also taken into consideration the action on the part of the respondents in paying the amounts (contributions) after launching of the prosecution while acquitting the accused.

( 2 ) UNDER Section 6 r/w para-38 of the 21 Scheme every management has to collect the contributions from employees at the time of payment of salaries every month and remit the same along with the employer s contributions within 15 days thereafter. If the contributions remain unpaid for over a period of three months, it is open to the Provident Fund Commissioner to launch Criminal prosecution against the erring managements and get them punished as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act. Separate prosecutions were launched for every three months from March 198 6/02/1989, the period in which the contributions were not paid to the petitioner as required under the Act. Hence, all these appeals can be disposed of by a common order.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the management of the 1st respondent mill i. e. , M/s. Chirala CO-Operative Mills Limited, Chirala was collecting employees share of contributions every month regularly, but it failed in remitting the same along with its share in the office of the petitioner for the period mentioned above. The 2nd respondent in all these cases is a Government employee whose services we aced at the disposal of the 1st respond for appointment as Managing Directing of, and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mr. R. N. Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the offence being a statutory offence, the principle of Mens rea cannot be brought in for acquitting the accused as the commission of the offence was admitted by the respondents themselves by paying the contributions after launching of the prosecutions from time to time. He has also contended that the question of obtaining the permission for launching prosecution against the individuals does not arise as the prosecution was launched in the capacity of Managing Director of an establishment which violated statutory provisions. Further, the prosecution was launched against the individual for failure on his part in obeying the command of law intended for the benefit of the workmen and it is nothing but abdication of the duty cast upon the official concerned. Hence, no permission of the Government is required for launching prosecution even if the person at the helm of affairs of an establishment/managing Director happened to he a public servant as he failed to discharge the statutory obligations cast on him.

( 4 ) COUNTERING the above argument, Mr. C. Ramananda Vittal, counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that as all the prosecutions were launched