Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This appeal by the State of Bihar against the acquittal of the respondents raises two important points of law for decision, first, whether under Section 14A of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (XIX of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act, an officer of a company can be deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Act without proof of consent, connivance or neglect on his part, and, second, whether mens rea is a necessary constituent of the offence under paragraph 76 of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Sec. 5 of the said Act.

2. There are three respondents in this appeal. Respondent 3 is the Gaya Cotton and Jute Mills Ltd., respondent 1, S. P. Bhadani, is the Managing Director, and respondent 2, Prafulla Kumar Panda, is the Factory Manager and Secretary of the said mills. Admittedly, the Act was made applicable to the said mills, with the result that the workers thereof were entitled to the benefit of the provident fund created under the Act. The allegations against the respondents were that they failed to remit t