ORDER 1. The petitioner has been prosecuted under S. 85(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation along with the Managing Director of the Company of which she is a Director. The Company is an establishment within the meaning of the E.S.I. Act. Under S. 40(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 the principal employer has the liability to pay both shares of contribution within the prescribed period, Failure in this respect attracts the penal provision of S. 85(a) of the Act. Under S. 2(17)(iii) principal employer in respect of an establishment means any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment. There is no such specific averment in the complaint that the petitioner is responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment. In a case falling under clause (iii) of sub-so (17) of S. 2 of the E.S.I. Act, a Director is not liable to prosecution in the absence of necessary averment in this respect. In the case of Managing Director, however, the position is different because the very designation Managing Director shows that the person holding such office is responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment and as such liable to be prosecuted as principal employer. Accordingly, the proceeding in the court below so far as the present petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed and the petitioner stands discharged. The proceeding in respect of the other accused, however, will proceed in accordance with law. This revisional application stands disposed of accordingly. 2. This order will also govern the Criminal Revision Case No. 651 of 1993. Revisional application disposed of. Proceedings against the petitioner quashed.