Re-appreciation of evidence adduced before Trial Court.

This appeal has been directed by the Manager, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hosur, Dharmapuri District against the judgment of acquittal by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Hosur, on 8. 1988 in C.C. No.274 of 1986 on his file.

.2. The facts which have given rise to the present appeal are briefly as follows: The appellant/ the Manager, Employees state Insurance Corporation, Hosur, Dharmapuri district, filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hosur, under Sec.85-A of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) alleging that as per resolution passed on 18. 1958 the appellant/ complainant had powers to inspect the factories. At door Nos.A-4 and A-5, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Hosur, the first respondent/first accused is conducting a factory with the name M/s. Mohan conductors as the proprietor. The second respondent/ second accused is the Manager of the said factory. The factory of the respondent is covered by the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. As per Sec.45-A of the Act the respondents have to collect the contribution from the labourers working in their factory and along with the contribution of the management, they should deposit the same to the account of the Employees State Insurance Fund. But the respondents have not deposited the contribution amount for the period from 26. 1985 to 30.6.1985, which came to Rs.12,875.50, even after expiry of the due date. Even though the respondents were instructed to pay the said amount within fifteen days from 25. 1985, they have not done so. Hence, they are liable to be punishable under Secs.85-A and 85(i) of the Act.

3. Copies of the complaint were furnished to the respondents free of cost as per Sec. 207 of Crl.P.C. As the respondents denied the offence, they were ordered to be tried by the Magistrate.

.4. P.W.1 Muralidharan Nair gave evidence that he was working as the Inspector, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hosur. When he went to the factory of the first respondent on 12. 1985 to make an inspection, the second respondent/ Manager was present, but he did not produce the accounts of the company as required, but gave the better Ex.P-1. After sending a registered letter dated 20.1.1986, copy of which is Ex.P-2 and postal acknowledgement Ex.P3, he went for a second time to make an inspection on 2. 1986. Even on that date, the second respondent did not produce the accounts. Thereafter, he gave a complaint with the SIPCOT police station on 22. 1986. When he went for athird time for inspection on 13. 1986, both the respondents were absent and an employee produced three different attendance registers. As per the same 20 persons were shown to be working in the factory including the second respondent. Thereafter, he sent a report Ex.P-4 to the Regional Office. On 13. 1986 he had signed in the attendance register and visitor’s books of the respondents factory. P.W.2 Radhakrishnan, who was working as Assistant Director, Employee’s State Insurance Corporation, deposed on 26. 1984 he inspected the factory of the first respondent and found 22 employees and his inspection report is Ex.P-5. He had also stated that electric energy was used by the respondent in the factory. P.W.3 Gopal Rao is a complainant. He said he was working as the Manager, Employees’ State Insurance corporation Branch at Hosur. The respondent have not deposited the contribution of the employees working in the factory for the period from 26. 1984 to 30.6.1985, namely Rs.12,8750. Thereafter Form C-16 and notice were issued by the respondents on 9. 1985, copies of which are Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 respectively. The reply sent by the respondents is Ex.P-8 and the order passed by the Regional Manager is Ex.P-9 and the copy of the resolution is Ex.P-10. The order passed by the Regional Manager to prosecute the respondents is Ex.P-11. He also stated that the respondents have admitted their guilt before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and