A.P. Lavande. J.-Heard Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2.

2. All the above revision applications are being disposed of by common judgment and order since the question of law and the facts involved in all these revision applications are almost identical.

3. The petitioners have challenged the judgments and orders dated 28th January, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. South Goa, Margao in Criminal Appeal Nos. 11/2010, 10/2010, 12/ 2010, 8/2010, 9/2010 preferred by the petitioners against the judgments and orders dated 22/12/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Labour Case Nos.215/L/1996/1, 119/L/1997/1, 171/L/1998/1, 55/L/1999/1 and 216/L/1997/1.

4. By the impugned judgments, petitioner No.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 85(i)(b) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (The Act for short) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5.000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The fine amount, if any, recovered from the accused has been ordered to be paid to the complainant in terms of Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

5. Respondent No. 1 filed Labour Case Nos. 119/L/1997/1, 171/L/1998/1. 55/L/1999/1. 216/L/1997/1 against the petitioners herein for failure to pay contribution for certain periods which are the subject matters of Criminal Revision Application nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2011. Criminal Revision Application No.4 /2011 which arises out of Labour Case No. 215/L/1996/1 was filed for failure to file return for the period ending March, 1995. In Labour Cases Nos.215/L/1996/1 and 216/L/1997/1 on behalf of respondent No. lone witness was examined namely Anil Krishna Naik, PW1, the manager of respondent No. 1 and in Labour Case Nos.119/L/1997 II, 171/L/1998/1 and 55/L/1999/1 on behalf of respondent No.1 one witness was examined namely K. K. Sukwani the manager of respondent No. 1 who tendered oral and documentary evidence. After the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, no evidence was led on behalf of the accused. There is no dispute that petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of petitioner No.1.

6. Learned Magistrate upon appreciation of the evidence led by a the complainant held that the contraventions under Sections 85(a) and 85(e) punishable under Section 85(i)(b) of The Act were made out and consequently convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. The lower appellate Court in Appeals preferred by the petitioners concurred with the findings given by the Magistrate and consequently dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners. The petitioners have filed the present revision applications challenging both the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and learned Additional Sessions Judge. South Goa, Margao.

7. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Almeida has urged the very same contentions which were urged before the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class and learned Additional Sessions Judge. Both the judgments are assailed primarily on the following grounds :

(1) There is no proper sanction in each case in terms of Section 86 of The Act and the sanctions do not disclose application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority.

(ii) Petitioner No. 2 is not the principal employer in terms of The Act and as such the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 85(i)(b) of The Act is not maintainable; the security personnel employed by petitioner No. 2 are not "employees" within the meaning of The Act and petitioner No. 2 can be at the most termed as immediate employer.

(iii) The sentences imposed on petitioner No. 2 are highly excessive and considering the facts and circumstances of the case the sentences imposed are liable to be reduced even if the conviction of petitioner No. 2 is upheld.

Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel for the p