( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation assailing the Judgment of Acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under section 85 (a) of the Employees' State insurance Act, 1948 by the Special Court for economic Offences, Bangalore in C. C. No. 608/1994 dated June 29, 1998. The brief facts are as follows: the respondents are carrying on the business of printing under the name and style of Vaishali Printers' situated at No. D-8-10, sri. Balaji Complex, Sultanpet, Bangalore - 560 053. The said Printers is covered under the provisions of the ESI Act by giving a Code No. 53-4525/83. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are partners of the said Vaishali Printers. On the allegation of non-payment of contribution of rs. 2,722. 50/- for the wage periods ending october 31, 1992, November 30, 1992 and december 31, 1992, the Corporation filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. before the Special Court for Economic Offences, bangalore, alleging that the respondents have committed an offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the Act and hence the Complaint.

( 2 ) LEARNED Judge of the Economic offences took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 85 (a) and secured the presence of the respondents. Upon hearing both sides, the charges came to be framed for the offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the act. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Corporation examined p. W. Nos. 1 to 3, produced Exhibits No. P1 to P16. The statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The defence is one of total denial. The Presiding officer for Economic Offences for the reasons recorded in his Judgment acquitted the Accused of the charges framed. It is this Judgment of acquittal which is questioned in the present appeal.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel Smt. Geetha Papanna appearing for the Corporation contended that on the form submitted by the respondents, Code number was allotted covering the respondent printers within the purview of the ESI Act She submitted that the Corporation had also inspected the business premises of the respondent-Printers and have also made inspection of the ledger for the period ending 1989, 1990 and 1991 and submitted that when once the Accused is covered under the ESI Act, it is the duty of the partners to pay the liability which is liable to be paid under the Act. She further submitted that once the respondents failed to pay the contribution whether the amount could be more or less it is only incidental and liable under Section 85 (a) of the act. She further submitted that when once it is established that the coverage of the respondent-Printers under the Act, nothing is required to be proved and that the ESI Act is self-implementing Act and self-legislation. Therefore the question of determining amount under the Act does not arise. Further, she submitted that Section 2-A of the Act provides for registration of factories and establishment under the Act. Section 39 provides for payment of contribution payable by the employer and section 40 deals with the liability of the employer to pay the contribution. She further submitted that Regulation 26 prescribes to file the returns by the employer and Regulation 31 provides for payment of contribution within the period of 21 days. She further submitted that when once the principal employer fails to pay the amount under the Act, it attracts Section 85 (a) of the Act. In support of her contention, she relied on the decisions rendered in employees' State Insurance Corporation v. T. V. Nanjundaswamy (Crl. Appeal No. 154/1995 dated August 13, 1998), ESI corporation v. Subharaya Adiga ILR 1988 Kar 11805, ESI Corporation, Bangalore v. Veerabhadrappa 2001-1- LLJ-1532 (Kant), and also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in ESI Corporation v. F. Fibra, Bangalore (P) ltd. , AIR 1997 SC 2441 : 1997 (1) SCC 625 : i 1997-II-LLJ-739 and lastly on the decision of kerala High Court in P. Renuka v. ESI corporation,