All these four criminal appeals are filed by the Deputy Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore, against. the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, on 21-1-2002 in C.C. Nos. 582, 570, 569 and 581 of 1998 respectively, whereby the Court - below acquitted the respondents in all the aforesaid four cases for an offence punishable under Section 85(1)(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

2. Since the appellants and the respondents in all these four appeals are one and same even though allegations made in the complaint by the appellant/complainant against the respondents 1 and 2 is for a different purpose and so also the question of fact and law involved in these cases are same, therefore, in order to avoid repetition of facts and how, they were taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The case of the appellant/ESI Corporation is that the respondent/accused 2 M/s. Cosmos Leather Exports Limited, is covered under Employees' State Insurance Act with effect from 16-2-1994 and on the basis of Form 1 dated 25-2-1995 a Code No. 53-13101-23 was allotted. Respondent Rakesh Kulkarni was the Manager and principal employer of the said factory i.e., accused 2 in terms of Section 2(17) of the ESI Act. The respondent/accused 1 had failed to pay the contribution collected from its employer along with its contribution in accordance with Section 39 of the ESI Act for the period from 1-9-1997 to 31-121997. Since no amount of contribution for the aforesaid period was paid by the respondents, notice in Form C-18 was issued on 20-4-1998 to the said factory, which was duly served on the factory and also on respondent 1 a show-cause notice was issued as to why action should not be taken under Section 25 of the ESI Act. As the contribution for the period from 31-10-1997 to 31-12-1997 has not been assessed by the Insurance Inspector on 3-3-1998. Inspite of the notice, the contribution has not been deposited or paid. Therefore, respondent 1 being the Principal employer (Manager) of the respondent 2/factory has violated the Regulation 31 read with Regulations 39 and 40 of the General Regulation of 1950 and the provisions of the ESI Act. Therefore, a private complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against respondents 1 and 2. After recording the evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that respondent 1 is not the principal employer and no prior notice was served on him to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 85Cl)(a) of the ESI Act. Likewise, other three criminal cases came to be filed for non-payment of the ESI Contribution for the period from January 1997 to March 1997, October 1996 to December 1996 and September 1997 to December 1997. Hence, these appeals.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel Smt. Geetha M.P. appearing for the appellant/ESI Corporation and Sri J. Kanikaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 1.

5. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation in all these appeals that as on the date of inspection, respondent was working as a Manager i.e., principal employer and he failed to contribute the subscription amount collected out of the wages of its employees to the Department. When the Inspector of Insurance inspected the factory on 3-3-1998, found that though ESI contribution was deducted out of the salary of its employees-failed to deposit the same along with its contribution. Therefore, a private complaint came to be filed after complying with the mandatory provisions by issuing show-cause notice to respondents 1 and 2. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that before filing the charge-sheet, necessary sanction has been obtained from the Competent Authority i.e., the Joint Regional Director of ESI by the Corporation to