The prosecution must produce sufficient evidence to sustain the charges against the accused, and findings should not be based merely on the allegations in the complaint.

Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. Petitioner Noor Mohammed and two other partners viz. Sarvashri Immamudin and Mohd. Shafi of M/s United Felt Manufacturers, Amer Road, Jaipur were prosecuted under Section 85 (a) (e) and

(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Shri Immamudin died during the pendency of the trial and the trial against him has abated.

3. The petitioner No. 1, Shri Noor Mohd. is also stated to have died during the pendency of the revision, and therefore, the proceedings initiated against him have also abated. The petition now survives to be considered only on behalf of Mohd. Shafi.

4. The complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 07.03.1979 against the aforesaid three partners of M/s United Felt Manufacturers alleging that factory of the aforesaid firm was covered under the Act of 1948 and regulations of 1950 framed thereunder. Under Section 40 (1) of the ESI Act, 1948 and Regulations 26 and 31 of ESI (General) Regulations, 1950 every principal employer of a factory is required to pay contribution within 21 days of the last date of the wage period in which the contribution falls due and also to submit contribution cards duly affixed with contribution stamps in Set A, B and C accompanied with return of contribution cards in Form 6 within 42 days at the end of contribution periods at the Regional Office of the Rajasthan Region of the Employees State Insurance Corporation. On this premise it was alleged that inspite of repeated reminders issued by this office, the accused have not made the statutory compliance within the statutory time limit. Similarly, contribution cards of set B for the contribution period ended on 30.09.1978 which should have been submitted latest by 11.1978 have not been submitted by the accused. Consequently, the principal employers were alleged to have committed breach of Section 40 of the ESI Act and Regulation 28 of the General Regulation, 1950 which made the partners punishable under Section 85 (a), (e) and (g) of the Act of 1948.

5. It appears from the Judgment under appeal as well as of the trial Court that the defence taken by the principal employers was that coverage of the factory under the Act of 1950 having not in dispute long time before the alleged breaches and during the period in question the factory was closed, and therefore, no contribution were required to be deposited with the Corporation for that period and secondly the relevant record in respect of the evidence for the period in question was washed away during the floods of 1981. The accused also took the plea of lack of requisite show cause notice before alleged complaint had not been served on them.

6. On behalf of the ESI Corporation, the Deputy General Manager, Lekraj was produced as witness. Exhibits P/2, P/3 and P/4 were also produced.

7. The learned trial Court found that no evidence in respect of defence plea was produced by the accused persons nor any information about the closure of the factory was sent to the Corporation and that the notices were duly served is apparent from Exhibit P/2, P/3 and P/4. In view of the aforesaid findings, the offence against accused persons was found to have been proved and all the accused persons before the learned trial Court were convicted under Section 85 (a), (e) and (g) of the ESI Act, 1948. Under Section 85 (a) each one was sentenced to one months Simple imprisonment with a fine of

Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I. For the offence under Section 8 (e) and (g) each of the accused was sentenced for one month S.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. of 15 days each.

8. On appeal, by its order dated 05.01.1994, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur dismissed the appeal agreeing with the reasoning given