SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) ALL these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the JMFC, Somwarpet, in C. C. No. 701/88 and two other connected cases in which the accused was a Co-operative Society called the Igoor Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha, Niyamitha represented by the President Sri Muthappa and Secretary Sri. Ramesh who were accused Nos. 1 and 3 along with Igoor VSSSN arraigned accused No. 2. They are currently the respondents in these appeals arising from an order of acquittal recorded by the learned JMFC at a prosecution launched against them by the Provident Fund Commissioner alleging default in filing of returns with the Provident Fund Commissioner touching the matter of collection of Provident Fund dues as enjoined by the Provident Fund Act. ( 2 ) THAT in prosecutions under the Provident Fund Act touching any deviation or omission or commissions by any individual or institution covered by that Act had necessarily to start with the sanction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who grants such sanction according leave to a particular Inspector under the P. F. Act to lay a complaint before the Court for purposes of prosecuting erring individuals or institutions. ( 3 ) IT is not denied that without a valid order of sanction produced into Court, and thereafter inducted into the records in an appropriate manner which means by getting the sanction order duly marked in the evidence of somebody on behalf of the complainant being very essential, in the absence of the same launching a prosecution complaining of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act would necessarily be doomed. In the prosecution out of which these appeals arise, complaint made was that the accused persons had not complied with the requirement of submitting returns for the months of October, November and December, 1987. Therefore, in respect of each of these periods, the Provident Fund Inspector sought to prosecute them armed with orders made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner permitting him to launch a prosecution against the accused persons, including the omissions relating to each of the three months. Therefore, in respect of each of these periods, the Provident Fund Inspector sought to prosecute them armed with orders made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner permitting him to launch a prosecution against the accused persons, including the omissions relating to each of the three months. ( 4 ) WE are also to mention that in case No. 700/88 wherein these very accused had been prosecuted for similar defaults in respect of an anterior period, that case had ended in a conviction as admittedly therein the sanction order had not only been produced but duly marked as an exhibit. ( 5 ) WHAT appears to have transpired in these cases is the Court had ordered a common trial covering all the cases since they involved the same persons, albeit the complaints against them covering different periods, but all in one sequence. The result was although common evidence came to be recorded, care was however not taken either by the prosecutor or by the Court to ensure that orders according sanction to prosecute in each and every case was got marked. With the result, the sanction orders pertaining to the first case in C. C. No. 700/88 was alone marked as Exhibits P2, P3 and P4 as could be seen from a reading of the learned Judge's order. The sanction orders pertaining to the other cases in C. C. Nos. 701 to 703/88 covering the subsequent periods from October to Dec. 1987 were not marked although produced with the complaints as may be seen from the records. The resultant position was, the learned Judge basing himself on this omission i. e. , of non-production of several orders rejected the prosecution for the said periods for want of sanction although they were before Court but not marked. ( 6 ) WE must however admit logically speaking, the conclusion reached by the learned Judge is probably be without any blemish since no prosecution under the Act can possibly emanate in the absence of a valid sanction order, that should also be made legitimately a part of the Court records having been inducted into evidence in an appropriate manner. But, what we fail to comprehend is why that step was not taken at least when the Judge himself noticed the omission which later turned out to be a deadly missile so as the prosecution was concerned. But, what we fail to comprehend is why that step was not taken at least when the Judge himself noticed the omission which later turned out to be a deadly missile so as the prosecution was concerned. ( 7 ) ALL that had to be done was just to mark the sanction orders which had been produced along with the complaint in each of these cases and that could have been done even by consent and if consent was withheld, the complainant could have been recalled just for the purpose of getting the orders marked subject to whatever cross-examination the accused could venture to make and thus make amends for an apparent blunder committed by the prosecutor. We cannot exonerate the Court in that behalf for we think the Court has shared that folly as well since it was the duty of the Court to monitor the materials produced all procured before making any order rejecting the prosecutions case, and to make sure that all legal evidence tendered which of course would extend to bringing within its fold documents was legitimately made part of the Court's records. If in that process there was some omission by the Prosecutor, we expect the Court to be sufficiently alert to notice such an omission and to proceed to rectify the same then and there. That of course was not done herein and prima facie indicating that the learned Judge was not adequately vigilant while recording the evidence which in this case was totally formal in character. The Court even had the further chance of making amends in the matter after it noticed the said lacuna on the part of the prosecution in omitting to mark the relevant sanction orders. At that stage it could have set matters right by getting the documents marked as indicated herein, but instead it has taken the easy way out in sailing with the accused, giving them the benefit of what certainly appears to be a ludicrous lapse on the part of the prosecution who had badly tripped up in not taking the very simple procedural step of getting the crucial sanction orders marked in the cases. ( 8 ) AS pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel who appears in support of these appeals, the Prosecution launched under the Provident Funds Act is not so much to drive any sanguine satisfaction of having prosecuted someone, but it is to make certain that steps are taken to see that a welfare Legislation is not flouted with impunity by those who are enjoined under the law to obey the mandate of the Act designed to ensure the welfare of the employees of an establishment covered by the Act. If returns are enjoined to be filed within a particular time are not filed which indeed is the subject of the complaint filed in this case, it would lead to a lot of problems to the Provident Fund Commissioner in the matter of ascertaining whether the benefits to which the employees of the establishment are entitled are actually in the pipeline or not so that ultimately it may reach them. It is to ensure recovery of what is legitimately due to the employees by the establishment, prosecution is launched whenever there is an omission. But, we notice whenever they are launched, they are found to be doomed from the start. When it comes to the gut of the matter, that is of conducting these prosecutions, they are done in the most cavalier fashion without regard to the disastrous consequences leading to miscarriage of justice. ( 9 ) BUT then we are appalled to notice in this case the circumstance of the Court which was in a position to ensure that the prosecution was conducted in an apposite manner without any error being committed either deliberately or indeliberately should have remained a mute witness, only to pronounce in the end that for not doing this or not doing that, prosecution had failed. We have on other occasions reminded Judges presiding over Criminal Courts that effective participation in the trial of an accused without of course stepping on the corns of any one was very important, but that it should be done in such a manner as not to deny a fair trial to the accused particularly when he is represented by a Counsel of his choice. Subject to such a limitation we expect the Court to play an intelligent and meaningful role in these cases and to make clear that the presiding Judges are not just to sit there with arms akimbo only to be roused from some kind of a revery at the end just to knock out the prosecution which often times leads to a totally acquittals that turn out to be totally misconceived being handed out by a slothful prosecution and an indolent Judge both acting with extreme indifference. We must also take this occasion to point out to the learned Magistrate that in these cases where the offences are distinct pertaining as they are to different periods, the Court should take the trouble of recording evidence in each of the cases separately and not simply lump them up by clubbing several cases which of course may be convenient, but, as has happened in this case would lead to totally incongruent results affecting the merits of the case. It is therefore, not merely desirable but is essential that each case is tried on its own merits and disposed of by a separate order and not by a common order as has happened in this case. ( 10 ) WE have taken occasion to make the above observations since we have found that these type of desultory orders are being passed following trials that are held in a most perfunctory manner, in that cases arising under the Provident Funds Act and other kindred enactments. We hope that this will be an eye opener and will ensure that henceforward, the learned Magistrates will display less enthusiasm for discarding prosecutions for technical omissions committed by unwitting prosecutors. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, these appeals succeed and in the consequence stand allowed. The judgment of the learned Magistrate, Somwarpet recorded in C. C. Nos. 701, 702 and 703/1988 alone are set aside and the said cases are remitted back to the learned Magistrate for a de novo disposal in the light of the observations made hereinbefore in accordance with law. We do hope that the Judge will take the cue from what we have said so far, and act henceforth with greater alacrity. We need hardly add, these observations would also apply to lackadaisaical prosecutors who will, we hope henceforward keep their eyes wide open while conducting these cases. Appeals allowed. We do hope that the Judge will take the cue from what we have said so far, and act henceforth with greater alacrity. We need hardly add, these observations would also apply to lackadaisaical prosecutors who will, we hope henceforward keep their eyes wide open while conducting these cases. Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .