JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This is complainant's appeal against an order of acquittal. 2. The complainant is the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for the State of Orissa. Respondents 1 and 2 are the Directors and Respondent No. 3 is the Manager of Company named Messrs Pressels Private Limited having its head office in the Industrial Estate at Cuttack. They stood their trial for offences u/s 85(a) and (e) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the allegation that they failed to pay the employees and employer's share of contribution within the statutory period of limitation in respect of their employees for the period from 29-7-1974 to 26-1-1975 and further they failed to submit the contribution cards together with the return in Form 6 within the statutory time limit. 3. At the trial, the Respondents admitted that they had not paid the contribution within due date and contended that due to illness of their Accountant the amount could not be paid in time and that the amount was paid on 6-10-1975. 4. The only ground on which the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondents of the offence u/s 85(a) of the Act is that the petition of complaint was barred by limitation because it was filed beyond six months from the last day of the wage-period in which the contribution fell due. As regards the offence u/s 85(e) of the Act, he held that non-payment of contribution rendered the submission of contribution cards impossible of performance and hence there could be no conviction of the Respondents for that offence. 5. The main ground urged on behalf of the Appellant is that the learned Magistrate committed an error of law in construing the provisions of Regulation 31 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"). 6. The Relevant provisions of Section 85 of the Act are extracted below: 85 Punishment for failure to pay contributions, etc. 6. The Relevant provisions of Section 85 of the Act are extracted below: 85 Punishment for failure to pay contributions, etc. If any person- (a) fails to pay any contribution which under this Act he is liable to pay, or x x x (e) fails or refuses to submit any return required by the regulation, or makes a false return xxx x x x he shall be punishable- (i) where he commits an offence under Clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months but (a) which shall not be less than three months, in case of failure to pay the employees' contribution which has been deducted by him from the employees' wages; (b) which shall not be less than one months in any other case, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to two thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term or of fine only in lieu of imprisonment; (ii) where he commits an offence under any of the Clause (b) to (g) (both inclusive), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 7. The other relevant provision that requires to be referred to is Section 86(3) of the Act which runs as follows: 86. Prosecutions- x x x (3) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made in writing in respect thereof, within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 8. Having regard to the above provisions, the point for determination is when were the offences committed in this case, i.e., when did the employer fail to pay his contribution under the Act. 9. "Contribution" has been defined in Section 2(4) to mean the sum of money payable to the Corporation by the principal employer in respect of an employee and includes any amount payable by or on behalf of the employee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. "Contribution period" has been defined in Section 2(5) to mean such period, being not less than twenty-five but not exceeding twenty-seven consequtive weeks or six consecutive months, as may be specified in the Regulations. 10. "Contribution period" has been defined in Section 2(5) to mean such period, being not less than twenty-five but not exceeding twenty-seven consequtive weeks or six consecutive months, as may be specified in the Regulations. 10. Under Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations "contribution period" shall be one of the following periods: Beginning with the mid-night of the last Saturday. Ending with the mid night of the last Saturday in next. Hereinafter called. (i) January July Set A (ii) July January (iii) March September Set B (iv) September March (v) May November Set C (vi) November May 11. According to the complainant, the Respondents failed to pay the contribution for the period from 29-7-1974 to 26-1-1975 in respect of the employees who were allotted Set A of the contribution periods. Time for payment of contribution is prescribed under Regulation 31 which runs as follows: 31. Time for payment of contribution- An employer who is liable to pay contribution in respect of any employee shall pay those contributions within the following periods (a) within 21 days of the last day of the wage period in which the contribution falls due; x x x (e) within 21 days after the termination of the contribution period in respect of every employee, whicheuer is earlier; x x x 12. Shri B.D. Ojha, the Inspector of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Orissa, who was examined as P.W. 1, stated that the Respondents failed to pay the contribution for the contribution period from 29-7-1974 to 26-1-1975. This was also admitted by the Respondents during their examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. The contribution period ended on 26-1-1975 and according to Regulation 31(c) the employer was liable to pay the contribution within 21 days after the termination d the contribution period in respect of every employee. The moment the employer allows the period of 21 days after termination of the contribution period to pass without making payment of the contribution, he commits the offence. So the period of limitation of six months u/s 86(3) of the offence, viz., 17th February, 1975. If this method of computation is adopted, the complainant petition which was filed on 24-6-1975 is within time. 13. So the period of limitation of six months u/s 86(3) of the offence, viz., 17th February, 1975. If this method of computation is adopted, the complainant petition which was filed on 24-6-1975 is within time. 13. According to the learned Magistrate, the expression "whichever period is earlier" in Regulation 31 confers a right on the Respondent to invoke the aid of Clause (a) thereof for computation of the period of limitation, prescribed in Sub-section (3) of Section 86 of the Act. Adopting this method of computation, he held that the complaint petition was barred by time. Clause (a) of Regulation 31 provides that contribution is payable within 21 days of the last day at the wage-period on which the contribution falls due, in explanation II of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act the "wage-period" has been defined to mean the period in respect of which wages ordinarily payable whether in terms of the contact of employment, express or implied or otherwise. The learned Magistrate relied on subsections (3) and (4) of Section 39 of the Act which provides that a week shall be the unit in respect of which all contributions shall be payable and that the contribution payable in respect of each week shall ordinarily fall due on the last day of the week. He, however, committed an error of record in observing that there was no evidence to show that the "wage-period" in the present case was either fortnightly or monthly instead of being weekly. Apparently be has overlooked the evidence of the defence witness No. 1 to the effect that the employees of the Company were paid their wages at the end of each month. If the wage is paid monthly, an employer is liable to pay the contribution within 21 days of the last day of the wage-period as provided in Regulation 31(a). If this method of computation is adopted, the Respondents must be held to have committed the offence u/s 85(a) of the Act after expiry of 21 days from the last day of the month and, accordingly, the contribution for the month of December, 1974, was payable by 21-1-1975 and the contribution for the month of January, 1975, was payable by 21-2-1975 and the complaint petition having been filed on 24-6-1976 it was within time. Thus, even if the period of limitation is computed according to Regulation 31(a), the Respondents committed the offence u/s 85(a) of the Act for having defaulted to pay the contribution for the months of December, 1974 and January, 1975 within the statutory time limit. In the light of the above discussion and on the admitted facts, the Respondents are to be held guilty for the offence u/s 85(a) of the Act. 14. As regards the offence u/s 85(e) of the Act, it was neither disputed nor denied by the Respondents that they had failed to submit the return as required u/s 44(1) of the Act read with Clause (c) of Regulation 26 of the Regulations which make it obligatory on the part of an employer who is in possession of a contribution card in respect of any person to send it together with a return, in duplicate, in Form 6 to the appropriate office within 42 days of the termination of the contribution period to which it relates. The learned Magistrate held that in view of the admitted position hat contribution for the period in question had not been paid, there could hardly be a prosecution u/s 85(e) of the Act as the non-payment of the contribution rendered the compliance of Section 44(1) of the Act and Clause (c) of Regulation 26 impossible of performance. Compliance of Regulation 26(c) is dependent on the payment of the contribution. Since the contribution had not been paid, the question of sending the contribution cards along with a return did not arise at all. The contribution cards are to be submitted only in the event of payment of contribution. Since the contribution had not been paid, the Respondents were not in possession of the contribution cards and hence the question of submitting the same along with a return did not arise. It is only after the payment of contribution by means of stamps affixed to the cards that the question of submitting the contribution cards along with a return in Form 6 would arise. If there was no payment of contribution, the Respondents cannot be said to have committed a default in submitting the contribution cards. This view gains support from a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Andhra Provincial Potteries Ltd. and Others. If there was no payment of contribution, the Respondents cannot be said to have committed a default in submitting the contribution cards. This view gains support from a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Andhra Provincial Potteries Ltd. and Others. The learned Magistrate, was, therefore, justified in acquitting the Respondents of the offence u/s 85(e) of the Act. 15. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed in part. The Respondents are held guilty u/s 85(a) of the Act and in view of the fact that the contribution could not be paid within the period of limitation due to illness of the Accountant of the Company and it was subsequently paid, I think a sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. While, therefore convicting the Respondents of the offence u/s 85(a) of the Act, I sentence each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- only. The acquittal of the Respondents of the offence u/s 85(e) of the Act is maintained. Final Result : Allowed