Judgment Jitendra Nath Chaudhuri, J. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 23.5.81 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, in Case No. 182C of 1981. 2. In the said impugned order, the learned Magistrate after accepting after accepting the plea of guilt tendered by the learned lawyer on behalf of the accused opposite party found the accused/opposite party guilty of the offences under S. 85(a) and 85(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act. He also held that as the accused had committed similar offences under S. 85(g) earlier and was punished by the Court on three former occasions, S. 85(A) of the said Act was applicable and accordingly, he convicted him there under and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He recovered in the said order that he was not inclined to impose any substantive punishment by way of imprisonment of the accused for this technical offence and was of opinion that the imposition of the accused for the technical offence and was of opinion that the imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice. He did not pass any separate sentence for the offence under S. 85(a) of the said Act, although he found the accused guilty in respect of the same. 3. Mr. Maitra, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, has urged the following two points:- 1) That the learned Magistrate should have passed separate sentences for the two offences under Clauses (a) and (g) of S. 85 of the said Act. 2) That under S. 85(A) of the said Act substantive imprisonment was compulsory and the learned Magistrate erred in law by imposing no substantive imprisonment. 4. Mr. Dutt, on behalf of the opposite party, has contended that the conviction under S. 85(A) of the said Act is not in accordance with law since the learned Magistrate found that accused had committed similar offences only under S. 85(g) of the said Act and not under S. 85(a). He has submitted that the conviction and sentence under S. 85(A) of the said Act should be set aside and that the opposite party is entitled to have the ame set aside in this application. In our view, these submissions of Mr. Dutt are well founded for the reasons set out below. 5. He has submitted that the conviction and sentence under S. 85(A) of the said Act should be set aside and that the opposite party is entitled to have the ame set aside in this application. In our view, these submissions of Mr. Dutt are well founded for the reasons set out below. 5. Section 85(A) reads as followed:- “Whoever, having been convicted by a court of an offence punishable under this Act, Commits the same offence shall, for every such subsequent offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to year, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that where such subsequent offence is for failure by the employer to pay any contribution which under this Act he is liable to pay, he shall for every such subsequent offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year but which shall not be less then three months and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to four thousand rupees.” 6. It is clear from the proviso to S. 85(A) of the said Act that the same can only be attracted provided there has been a conviction under S. 85(a) of the said Act. Section 85 reads as follows:- “Punishment for failure to pay contribution etc. It is clear from the proviso to S. 85(A) of the said Act that the same can only be attracted provided there has been a conviction under S. 85(a) of the said Act. Section 85 reads as follows:- “Punishment for failure to pay contribution etc. If any person – (a) fails to pay any contribution which under this Act he is liable to pay, or (b) deducts or attempts to deduct from the wage of an employee the whole or any part of the employers contribution, or (c) in contravention of S. 72 reduces the wages or any privileges or benefits admissible to an employee, or (d) in contravention of S. 73 or any regulation dismisses, discharges, reduces or otherwise punishes an employee, or (e) fails or refuses to submit any required by the regulations, or makes a false return, or (f) obstructs any Inspector or other official of the Corporation in the discharge of his duties, or (g) is guilty of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the requirements of this Act or the rules or the regulation in respect of which no special penalty is provided, he shall be punishable – (i) where the commits an offence under clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months but - (a) which shall not be less then three months, in cases of failure to pay the employees contribution which has been deducted by him from the employees wages : (b) which shall not be less then one month, in any other case, and shall also be fined 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 clauses (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 fact that the accused had committed similar offences only under S. 85(g) of the said Act and not under S. 85(a) on former occasions cannot attract the proviso to S. 85(A). Therefore, it is clear that the accused could not be convicted and sentenced under S. 85(A) of the said Act. The fact that the accused had committed similar offences only under S. 85(g) of the said Act and not under S. 85(a) on former occasions cannot attract the proviso to S. 85(A). Therefore, it is clear that the accused could not be convicted and sentenced under S. 85(A) of the said Act. This illegality is manifest. It appears on the face of the record. 8. It has been held in 88 CWN 677 (Bikash Ch. Mondal v. Susanta Mondal) by a Division Bench if this Court that in a revisional application by a party interested for enhancement of sentence, the accused is entitled to plead for his acquittal. We respectfully agree and rely on the purposes of the present case. Moreover, in the case of such a gross manifest error, apparent on the fact of the record, we would be justified in setting aside the said conviction and sentence under S. 85(A) of the said Act in the exercise of our inherent powers under S. 482 Cr. PC even if the accused was not entitled to any relief in the revisional application filed by the petitioner in which he has made the opposite party. We accordingly find the accused opposite party not guilty of the offence under S. 85(A) of the said Act and set aside both the conviction and the sentence of a fine imposed on him in respect of the same and acquit him of the offence under S. 85(A) of the said Act. 9. The learned Magistrate although he found the accused guilty for the offence under S. 85(a) of the said Act did not impose any sentence for the said offence. A separate sentence should have been passed in respect of the same by the learned Magistrate. We accordingly remand the case back and direct the learned Magistrate or his successor in office to impose such sentence as he thinks in accordance with law on the accused for his conviction under S. 85(a) of the said Act. 10. In the result, since the accused-opposite party is guilty under S. 85(a) of the said Act the case is remanded back only for the purpose of imposition of sentence in accordance with law for the offence under S. 85(a) of the said Act. The learned Magistrate will give the parties an opportunity of being heard before the imposition of sentence. 11. The learned Magistrate will give the parties an opportunity of being heard before the imposition of sentence. 11. This application succeeds to the extent indicated above and the Rule is also made absolute to that extent. 12. Let the seconds be sent down forthwith. N.G. Chaudhuri, J.-I agree. Rule made absolute ; case remanded.