These are appeals preferred by the Inspector of Provident Fund, Pondicherry, against the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, in C.C. Nos. 179 to 187 of 1977, acquitting the respondent, Who was charged for an offence under paragraph 76(b) and (d) of the, Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, read with section 14 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), in that, he failed to submit the returns in Form Nos. 5, 10 and 12 and failed to pay the contribution towards provident fund and administrative charges in the months covered in the nine cases. Excepting the periods, the facts of all the cases are similar and as the contentions are the same, I propose to pass a common order.

2. The prosecution has examined the same two witnesses to prove the case against the respondent, P.W. 1 is the Inspector of Provident Fund, Pondicherry. According to him, he inspected Messrs. Kandan Talkies and found that the respondent is one of the partners. The respondent employed more than twenty persons as employees and furnished a statement Exhibit P-1, dated 30th April, 1969. A memo. Exhibit P-2 was issued