These are appeals preferred by the State against the acquittals of the Respondent in two related cases, in which the facts are identical, but the periods of time concerned are different. In both these cases, the Inspector of Provident Funds, Coimbatore, prosecuted Messrs. Kaleeswarar Mills, Ltd., Coimbatore, the first accused, and the present Respondent, the General Manager of the Mills, the second accused, for an alleged offence under section 14 (2) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1952) read with paragraph 76 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. What has subsequently happened is that the prosecution was withdrawn as against the first accused (Messrs. Kaleeswarar Mills, Ltd.), and it survived only as against the Respondent. After proceedings into the facts in great detail, the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Coimbatore held that the Respondent was saved by virtue of the Proviso to section 14-A of the Act which is in the following terms:

“Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he exercised all du