Short Note : 1. The facts giving rise to the appeals may be stated in brief thus: The appellant Provident Fund Inspector filed a complaint against the accused under section 14 (2) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, read with paragraph 76 and paras 35 and 38 (2) of the scheme under the Act. On 4-12-1971, the case was fixed for recording evidence of the complainant on 26-2-72. In the mean while, the Government declared 26-2-72 as a public holiday on account of Moharram the learned Magistrate, however, without any intimation to the complainant, recorded proceeding in all these cases on 12th January, 1972 changing the date to 4th March 1972 for evidence of the complainant. When these cases were taken up on 4th March 1972, Shri Pal. Provident Fund Inspector, who had filed complaints, was not present in the Court as he had no notice of the changed date of hearing. Another Provident Fund Inspector, K.C. Narang, who was present in the Court or that date, requested the Court to grant time for producing evidence. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaints and acquitted the accused in all these cases on the ground that the complainant was absent without showing any sufficient cause. Hence these appeals. Held: It is clear from the record that the learned Magistrate changed the date of bearing in the absence of the parties and did not give any notice of the changed date to them though Shri K.C. Narang, another Provident Fund Inspector, and Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents, were present. However, when the State Government had declared 26-2-72 as a holiday and the learned Magistrate felt necessity of changing the date of hearing, then normally be ought to have given prior notice to the parties concerned regarding the changed date which apparently has not been done in these cases. The parties could not be expected to attend the Court on 12-1-72 when the learned Magistrate changed the date from 26-2-72 to 4-3-72. There is no material on record to indicate that Shri Pal, the Provident Fund Inspector, deliberately did not attend the Court on 4-3-72 and that he purposely did not produce the evidence. 2. The parties could not be expected to attend the Court on 12-1-72 when the learned Magistrate changed the date from 26-2-72 to 4-3-72. There is no material on record to indicate that Shri Pal, the Provident Fund Inspector, deliberately did not attend the Court on 4-3-72 and that he purposely did not produce the evidence. 2. It appears that Shri Narang, another Provident Fund Inspector, who was present in the Court, had made a request for adjournment on the ground that Shri Pal, the original complainant in these cases, had already been transferred to Bhopal due to which he could not attend the Court on that date; but the learned Magistrate became too tight by refusing the adjournment and despite there being reasonable and sufficient cause for his absence as undisputedly the complainant had never sought any adjournment in the past and that was the first date of hearing fixed for recording the complainant's evidence. If the complainant had been given prior notice about the changed date and if he had chosen to remain absent thereafter. the learned Magistrate would have been right in refusing the adjournment and in dismissing the complaints in absence of the complainant; but such is not the case here and, therefore, no blame could be put up on the complainant that he failed to produce his evidence. The learned Magistrate, in these circumstances, at best could have adjourned these cases subject to payment costs to meet the ends of justice when the accused had raised objection to the adjournment. In these circumstances I am of opinion that the learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing these complaints and acquitting the accused in these cases. Appeals allowed.