( 1 ) THE Court: A complaint has been lodged under section 14 (1b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the petitioner. Mr Biswanath Samaddar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is an 80 years old lady and that before the launching of the prosecution the entire dues on the basis whereof the prosecution was initiated had been paid. He contends that there might be some delay in the deposit but the entire deposit having been made, no prosecution can continue in view of the decision in the case of Provident Fund Inspector, Faridabad v. M/s. Jaipur Textile, Faridabad, and Another reported in AIR 1987 SC 1738. He also contends that there has been a non-application of mind in lodging the Criminal Case, inasmuch as alongwith the prosecution a prayer was also made for recovery of the dues which had already been paid and it clearly shows a blatant non-application of mind. He also relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal v. Raj Kumar Nemani and Ors. reported in 1995 (1), CLJ 89 in which the decision of the apex Court in J