(1) All the six revision applications arise out of the prosecutions for contravention of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, and the Scheme framed thereunder.

(2) The applicant here is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Along with the Company six directors of the company including the Resident Director were prosecuted. There were six cases filed by the Provident Fund Inspector against the applicant company and the six directors. The trial Magistrate convicted all the accused in each of these cases holding them guilty under paragraph 76 (c) of the Scheme under the Employees Provident Funds Act and sentenced the company as well as the six directors to various sentences of fine, excepting the original accused No. 5 Solao, who was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months.

(3) Against the decisions of the Trial Magistrate, the company as well as the directors filed appeals before the Assistant Judge, Nagpur. The Assistant Judge dismissed the appeals. The learned Assistant Judge maintained the convictions of the company as well as the directors, but modified the sentences by imposing fine of Rs. 50 on each of the accused in all the cases.

(4) The Central Hindustan Orange and Cold Storage Company, which was one of the accused in all the six cases has now filed these six revision applications challenging its convictions in those cases.

(5) The prosecutions were on the basis of the report or complaint made by the Provident Fund Inspector alleging that the applicant company as well as the directors, were guilty of offences under the Employees Provident Funds Act in not paying the provident fund contributions of the employees of the company and the employers share thereof for the period July to September 1962 and October to December 1962, for not filing the returns for the said periods as contemplated by the Employeers Provident Funds Act, 1952. The applicantcompany has been registered under the Factories Act and is doing business in the name of the Central Hindustan Orange and Cold Storage Company, Limited. Formerly, the applicant company was carrying on the business of preserving fruits and vegetables in cold storage and canning of fruits. In or about 1953, the applicant company leased out the canning portion to the Nagpur Orange Growers Association, shortly known as NOGA. After the lease of the canning section to the NOGA Company the applicant had only the business of running a cold storage and along with it also started the business of manufacturing ice. It is the case of the applicant that the cold storage was for the preservation of potatoes therein and there potatoes were brought in by customers to whom space was lent by the company for storing their potatoes under cool conditions.

(6) It is not disputed that the applicant-company did not deposit any amount on account of the provident fund, either of the deductions from the employees salaries or the employers contribution as required by the Employees Provident Funds Act. It is also not disputed that the statements of returns were not filed by the applicant company, nor the administrative charges deposited as required by the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act. It is contended by the applicant-company that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the concern and as such, the company was not liable to either deposit the amounts or to file the statements of returns.

(7) The main question, therefore, that arises is whether the applicant company is covered by the provisions of the Act and whether any breach on its part in not complying with the requirements as aforesaid will make the company liable for the violation of the provisions of the Act.

(8) Before I go to that question, it will be necessary first to decide another point which is in the nature of a preliminary point, namely, whether the trial Magistrate could take cognizance of the offences alleged to hav