V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) - This appeal is directed against the trial Courts judgment and order of acquittal dated 18. 5. 1984, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 952 of 1977, thereby acquitting the accused-respondents of charges under section 14 (1a) read with Paragraph 76 (d) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the Act ). ( 2 ) THE accused-respondents, who in the year 1976 were Managing Director, Joint Managing Director and Manager respectively of M/s. Rajkumar Mills Ltd. , Indore an establishment within the meaning of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and were responsible for the conduct of its business. They were charged with offences punishable under section 14 of the Act read with Para 76 (d) of the Scheme framed under the Act. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indore, before whom they were tried, acquitted them of the charges, vide judgment dated 18. 5. 1984. The Provident Fund Inspector has preferred this appeal against the said order of acquittal. Prosecution case in short was that the accused under Paragraphs 30 and 38 of the Scheme framed under the Act, known as Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, were required to pay the employees employers contribution to the provident fund, in respect of the employees of the Rajkumar Mills Ltd. , together with the administrative charges, for every month, within fifteen days of the close of that month. ( 3 ) THE accused-respondents did not pay Rs. 1,35,516. 00 (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand five hundred and sixteen) for the month of June, 1976, Rs. 1,11,998. 00 (Rupees one lath eleven thousand Nine hundred ninetyeight) for the month of August, 1976, and an identical amount of Rs. 1,11,998 for September, 1976, being the employers contribution to the provident fund vide Ex. P/i. Provident Fund Inspector, Indore, therefore, filed a complaint against the accused alleging that they were persistent defaulters and were earlier convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Cases Nos. 17/76 and 542/76 for non payment of employers contribution to the provident fund for the months of June, 1975 and August, 1975. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined two witnesses to prove the charge against the accused-respondents, whose defence, as can be gathered from their statements recorded under section 313, Cr. 17/76 and 542/76 for non payment of employers contribution to the provident fund for the months of June, 1975 and August, 1975. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined two witnesses to prove the charge against the accused-respondents, whose defence, as can be gathered from their statements recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. was that although they had deposited their contribution as due, but they did not remember the dates as to when it was deposited. ( 5 ) THE trial court acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that the complainant failed to produce relevant account-books and ledgers and the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant had no personal knowledge in the matter. ( 6 ) SHRI Khan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-appellant Provident Fund Inspector, contended that from the evidence on record it had been fully established that the accused respondents had committed offence punishable under section 14 (1a) of the Act and the acquittal is illegal. Shri Samvatsar, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the acquittal recorded by the trial court is proper and does not call for any interference. ( 7 ) WITNESS, K. G. Narang (P. W. 2) testified that the accused-respondents did not deposit employer's contribution to the provident fund for the months of June, August and September, 1976, within the specified time provided by law. It has come in the evidence of P. Ahuja (P. W. 1) that towards employer's contribution for the month of June, 1976 Rs. 12 345. 75 Ps. on 12. 8. 1976, Rs. 11,000/- each on 12. 11. 1976 and 13. 11. 1976 was deposited. Similarly for August, 1976, following deposits were made: On 3. 12. 1976, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 42051. 75 ps on 10. 12. 1976. For September, 1976, the accused respondents paid Rs. 43,143/- on 10. 12. 1976. Apparently, these deposits have not been made within the prescribed time of fifteen days of the close of the month. ( 8 ) THE trial court while insisting for production of record has overlooked a very important fact P. Ahuja (P. W. 1) in his cross examination by the accused had stated that he had brought the original challans with him in respect of the above mentioned payments. The record was also available. ( 8 ) THE trial court while insisting for production of record has overlooked a very important fact P. Ahuja (P. W. 1) in his cross examination by the accused had stated that he had brought the original challans with him in respect of the above mentioned payments. The record was also available. It was for the accused, had they so desired, to pursue the matter further, but they did not and for obvious reasons. It was on the basis of the original record that the witness testified to the deposits made by the accused from time to time. ( 9 ) SHRI Samvatsar, learned counsel for the accused, referring to the evidence of Ahuja (P. W. 1), pointed out that the witness while deposing about various deposits, has used the preposition 'me' and not 'ke' thereby suggesting that the deposits were made in the respective months and not for the months. ( 10 ) IT would be nothing short of taking a grammarian's view of the evidence, which is wholly unwarranted. Reading the evidence as a whole, particularly the examination-in-chief, it is abundantly clear that the preposition Me, wherever it occurs after the months, June, August and September, appears to be a typing error and it ought to be 'ke' (for), rather thant 'me'. This position is further cleared by the questions put to the accused by the learned Magistrate while examining them under section 3 13, Cr. P. C. Questions Nos. 2, 3, 4, as put to the accused that very clearly shows that the deposits as detailed above were for the month of-and not in the month of-as contended by the learned counsel The submission made is wholly ill-conceived and must be rejected. There is not a single word in the cross-examination of witness Ahuja (PW. 1), challenging or disputing his statement made in the examination-in-chief. On the other hand, a justification for not depositing employers contribution, has been suggested by asking the witnesses, if they know that the financial condition of the establishment, along with may other textile Mills, was in a bad shape, in the years 1975, 1976 and 1973 The witness, Ahuja (P. W. 1) was ready with the original record when he was examined in the court and it was on the basis of this record that he deposed to the various deposits made by the accused. If they had any other deposits in mind, the same could have been, rather ought to have been, put to the witness, but nothing of the sort was done. The trial court appears to be of the view that the prosecution did not produce relevant record and as such, Ahuja (P. W. 1) could not be believed. The trial court overlooked the fact that the witness had brought the original record to the court and it was on the basis of the record that he gave his evidence. ( 11 ) THE crucial question involved in the trial was, whether the accused-respondents had deposited their contribution to provident fund in time, that is to say, whether the contribution for the month of June, 1976, was deposited by 15th July, 1976, for August, 1976, by 15th September, 1976 and for September, 1976 by 15th October, 1976? The burden stood fully discharged by the prosecution when the witnesses made categorical statements that the accused did not deposit their contribution within time. It was a negative burden. The trial court has missed this crucial point and unduly stretched and insisted for documentary proof, which in the circumstances of the case, could not be there, nevertheless the original record was available to the accused, who in their statements recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. came out with a case that total deposits were made in time, but they did not remember the dates of such deposits. Nothing was easier for them, than producing the receipts or challans in respect of such deposits. The original challans and other record were available with the witness, but he was not asked a single question about it. The trial court failed to see a very simple proposition -what recorded entry or entries could there be in respect of deposits not made in time, i. e. within fifteen days of the cross of each month. Trial courts insistence for documentary proof for such entries was wholly unjustified. The approach is most unreasonable. So far as record is concerned, Ahuja (P. W. 1) had come with original record on the basis of which he made the statements as to when the deposits were made by the accused and this statement has not been challenged at all by the accused. On the other hand, dwindling financial position was suggested in cross examination of witnesses as a justification for belated deposits. On the other hand, dwindling financial position was suggested in cross examination of witnesses as a justification for belated deposits. The question of personal knowledge of the witness, which again seems to have weighed with the trial court, is wholly out of place in such matters, essentially relating to accounts. ( 12 ) THE accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 4, have not disputed the sanction for prosecution, filed as Ex. P/i. It is also not their case nor was it before the trial court that the alleged offence was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence charged. ( 13 ) PARAGRAPH 38 of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme) 952, provides for the mode of payment of contributions. It reads as follows: 38. (i)-The employer shall, before paying the member his wages in respect of any period or part of period for which contributions are payable, deduct the employees contribution from his wages which together with his own contribution as well as an administrative charge of such percentage, of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than an excluded employee and in respect of which provident fund contributions are payable, as the Central Government may fix, he shall within fifteen days of the dose of every month pay the same to the Fund by separate bank-drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charge. Paragraph 76 of the said Scheme relates to punishment for failure to pay contributions, which reads as follows: T1punishment for failure to pay contributions etc. Paragraph 76 of the said Scheme relates to punishment for failure to pay contributions, which reads as follows: T1punishment for failure to pay contributions etc. If any person (a) deducts or attempts to deduct from the wages or other remuneration of a member the whole or any part of the employer's contribution, or (b) fails or refuses to submit any return, statement or other document required by this Scheme or submits a false return, statement or other document, or makes a false declaration, or (c) obstructs any Inspector or other official appointed under the Act or this Scheme in the discharge of his duties or fails to produce any record for inspection by such Inspector or other official, or (d) is guilty of contravention or noncompliance with any other requirement of this Scheme, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 14 of the Act provides for penalties and section 14 (1a) of the Act, which has been inserted by Act No. 40 of 1973, and came into force with effect from 1. 11. 1973, provides for penalties for contravention of Paragraph 38 of the Scheme. It reads as follows: Section 14 (1a)-An employer who contravenes, or makes default in complying with, the provisions of section 6 or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges, or paragraph 38 of the Scheme, in so far as it relates to the payment of administrative charges, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, but (a) Which shall not be less than three months in case of default in payment of the employees contribution, which has been deducted by the employer from the employees wages; (b) which shall not be less than one month, 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, Section 6 of the Act reads as follows: Section 6-Contributions and matters, which may be provided for in Scheme. The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be six and a quarter per cent of the basic wages, (dearness allowance and retaining allowance (If any) for the time being payable to each of the employees (whether employed by him directly or by or through a contractor) and the employees contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him and may, if any employer so desires and if the Scheme makes provision therefor, be an amount not exceeding eight and one-third per cent of his basic wages (dearness allowance and retaining allowance (If any) Provided that in its application to any establishment or class of establishments which the Central Government after making such enquiry as it deems fit, may by notification in the Official Gazette specify, this (section) shall be subject to the modification that for the words six and a quarter per cent, the words eight per cent shall be substituted: Provided further that where the amount of any contribution payable under this Act involves a fraction of a rupee, the Scheme may provide for the rounding off of such fraction to the nearest rupee, half of a rupee or quarter of a rupee. Explanation 1-For the purposes of this section, dearness allowance shall be deemed to include also the cash value of any food concession allowed to the employee. Explanation 2-For the purposes of this section retaining allowance means an allowance payable for the time being to an employee of any factory or other establishment during any period in which the establishment is not working, for retaining his services. T ( 14 ) THE trial court, as has been discussed above, has overlooked the important aspects of the case and has handled the evidence in a most unreasonable manner and reached the conclusion as it did on unsustainable grounds. The view of evidence taken by the trial court is manifestly erroneous and reasons assigned are utterly unsustainable. The trial courts judgment being perverse is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and reversed. ( 15 ) IN view of the legal position, as stated above, the accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 4, are found to be guilty of contravention of section 14 (1 A) of the Act read with Paragraph 38 of the Scheme, made punishable under Paragraph 76 (d) of the Scheme. ( 15 ) IN view of the legal position, as stated above, the accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 4, are found to be guilty of contravention of section 14 (1 A) of the Act read with Paragraph 38 of the Scheme, made punishable under Paragraph 76 (d) of the Scheme. ( 16 ) HAVING held the accused-respondents guilty, the last scene is reached. Shri Khan, learned counsel for the appellant urged that under section 14 (1a) of the Act, enhanced punishment should be imposed on the accused respondents, who have been previously convicted for similar offences. The submission is ill-founded. A bald mention in the complaint by itself would not prove previous conviction. The accused-respondents had no opportunity to meet this allegation, inasmuch as they were not even asked a single question about their previous convictions, nor have the witnesses justified it. The law provides for mode of proof of previous conviction, which has not been followed in the instant case. In the circumstances, the question of enhanced punishment does not arise. There is also no adequate or special reason to impose a lesser sentence in the circumstances of the case. ( 17 ) HEARD learned counsel for both the parties on the question of sentence. The accused- respondents have been found to be guilty under section 14 (1a) of the Act, read with Paragraphs 38 and 76 (d) of the Scheme. It was submitted by Shri Samvatsar that they had deposited the amount, but after the due date, and a lenient view should, therefore be taken. ( 18 ) THE liability of an employer cannot be lightly evaded. The insertion of section (1a) to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act, clearly indicates that the defaulting employer is to be de lit with severely. Imprisonment is a rule and mere imposition of fine an exception. The Act is a piece of social welfare legislation intended to safeguard the interests of the employees. Non-deposit of his own contribution find that of the employee by the employer, should not be lightly viewed. As the preamble of the Act shows, it is a measure of social justice. The object of the legislature in enacting the Act is apparent, not only from the Preamble, but also from its various provisions. There is a positive direction to fulfill timely obligations at the pain of suffering penalties as provided by section 14 of the Act. As the preamble of the Act shows, it is a measure of social justice. The object of the legislature in enacting the Act is apparent, not only from the Preamble, but also from its various provisions. There is a positive direction to fulfill timely obligations at the pain of suffering penalties as provided by section 14 of the Act. ( 19 ) SUCH white-collar crimes pose a threat not only in terms of its impact on thousands of its victims that are defrauded of their hard earned money, but also in terms of what an average citizen thinks of our system of justice. Such frauds flourish today and must be curbed and any leniency in the matter would be misplaced. When applying any criteria of sentencing, a convicted white-collar criminal, a more realistic yard-stick is needed. The crimes of the upper classes should not be viewed in terms of their status and station in society. It is they who deem themselves as being above the law. The victims of such frauds are poor labourers and many times are not even aware that they have been taken or harmed. It is these upper class criminals who victimize thousands of individuals robbing the society, ultimately the State of lakhs of rupees and will continue to rob, unless death with seriously. ( 20 ) IN the result, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ (Rupees two thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, the accused respondents shall undergo six weeks imprisonment each. Accused Respondents No. 2 to 4, who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve Jut the sentence imposed. The Company, Respondent No. 1, is also fined Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand ). ( 21 ) SHRI Samvatsar made an oral prayer for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The prayer is rejected as there is no ground. .