Mens rea is not a necessary element of the offence under paragraph 76 of the Scheme read with Section 14 of the Act, except in cases falling under Sub-section (1) of Section 14.

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 to the fund the employers and the employees share of contribution from 1st April to 31st December, 1954, that they also failed to remit the administrative charges under the Act for aforesaid period and that they also failed to submit the returns prescribed under the Scheme from 1st July to 31st December, 1954. This prosecution was launched on 28-2-1955, by Mr. B. P. Singh, I. A. S., Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and also an inspector appointed under Sec.13 of the Act with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner who is the authority specified in this behalf by the Central Government under Sub-section (3) of Sec.14 of the Act.

3. Paragraph 29 of the scheme fixes the rate of contributions payable both by the employer and the employee under the Scheme towards the Provident Fund. Paragraph 30 makes it obligatory upon the employer to pay in the first instance both the contributions, the employers contribution and the members contribution and paragraph 38 empowers him to deduct the employees contribution from his wages before paying the member his wages in respect of any period or part of period for which contributions are payable.

Paragraph 38 further provides that the employer shall pay to the Fund both the contributions aforesaid as well as administrative charges within fifteen days of the close of every month. Again, sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 38 lays down that the employer shall forward to the Commissioner, within fifteen days of the close of the month, a monthly consolidated statement, in such form as the Commissioner may specify, showing recoveries made from the wages of each employee and the amount contributed by the employer in respect of each such employee. Paragraph 76 prescribes penalties for contravention of the provisions. It lays down, inter alia, that if any person fails to pay any contribution which he is liable to pay under the Scheme, or fails or refuses to submit any return, statement or other document required by the Scheme or submits a false return, statement or other document or makes a false declaration or is guilty of contravention of or non-compliance with any other requirement of the Scheme, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. This penalty has been prescribed pursuant to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Sec.14 of the Act. In short the accusation against the respondents was that they had contravened the provisions of paragraph 38 and thereby committed the offence under paragraph 76 read with Sec.14 of the Act.

4. There is no dispute that the contributions and the administrative charges for the relevant period were not remitted by the respondents and further that the requisite returns for the