JUDGMENT Surya Prasad 1. Criminal Appeal No. 2318 of 1979 against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1979 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Complaint Cases no. 711 of 1976, 713 of 1976 and 716 of 1976, which were ultimately consolidated with one and another, relating to the months of August, September and October, 1975 respectively and Complaint Case No. 711 of 1976 was treated as the leading case, for the purposes of evidence etc. Criminal Appeal No 2319 of 1979 is against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1979 passed by the aforesaid Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 714 (State v. Col. J.D. Karwal and others) relating to the month of February, 1976 acquitting the opposite-parties. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 2320 of 1979 is against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 1976 passed by the said Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Cases No. 710 of 1976, 712 of 1976 and 715 of 1976 which were consolidated with one and another and Criminal Complaint Case No. 710 of 1976 was treated as the; leading case for the purposes of evidence etc. The accused were acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases through the aforesaid common judgment. These three criminal appeals have been consolidated with one and another in this Court for disposing of them through one common judgment because the parties, the nature of the evidence and the points involved therein are the same. The complaint case briefly stated is that the complainant Sri B. N. Bajpai was an Inspector appointed under section 13 (1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 for the State of Uttar Pradesh and was also a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party no. 1/ respondent no. 1, M/s. Amitabh Textile Mills, Ltd, situated at Prem Nagar, Dehradun is an establishment to which the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (Act No. 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) and the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 are applicable. The said establishement is a company within the meaning of the explanation to section 14-A of the Act. The accused-respondents no. The said establishement is a company within the meaning of the explanation to section 14-A of the Act. The accused-respondents no. 2 to 9 are the employers in relation to the said establishment within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Act and were thus responsible to the Company for the conduct of its affairs. The accused named in the complaint in pursuance of the provisions contained in paragraph 32 of the said Scheme deducted from the wages of the member/employees of the aforesaid establishment, the employees' share of provident fund contribution for the months of August, September and October, 1975 relating to the Criminal Appeal No. 2318 of 1979 (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd., Dehradun, through Col. J. D. Karwal, Occupier and others and for the month of February, 1976 (relating to the Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 1979) and for the months of November, 1975, December, 1975 and January, 1976 (relating to the Criminal Appeal No. 22(20 of 1979) with a view to remitting the same to the fund as required under paragraph 38(1) of the Scheme. They were required to pay to the fund, the employees and employer's share of contribution for the aforesaid months within 15 days of the close of each and every said month in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 30 and 38 (1) of the said Scheme. But they failed too do so. Consequently they committed the offences punishable under section 14 (1-A) (ab) of the Act read with section 14-A thereof. Similarly they failed to pay to the Fund, administrative charges for the aforesaid months and, therefore, committed the offence punishable under section 14 (1-A) (b) of the; Act read with section 14-A thereof. Despite issue of notices to the accused named above they did not remit the contributions and administrative charges till the date, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U. P., accorded! his sanction for their prosecution. The offences referred to above were continuous till then and even thereafter. Therefore, the afore-named Inspector filed the separate complaints after having obtained separate sanctions. 3. The prosecution has examined the complainant B. N. Bajpai, PW 1 and he relied upon certain documents in support of its case. 4. The accused have admitted almost all the facts of the complaint case. They have, however, stated that the amounts in question were deposited subsequently on priority basis. 3. The prosecution has examined the complainant B. N. Bajpai, PW 1 and he relied upon certain documents in support of its case. 4. The accused have admitted almost all the facts of the complaint case. They have, however, stated that the amounts in question were deposited subsequently on priority basis. The accused Col. J. D. Karwal has further stated that the amount in question could not be paid or deposited within the prescribed period for certain un-avoidable circumstances. The accused have examined K. D. Ansari (DW 1), Sukhdeo Mohan (DW 2) and Ramesh Kumar (DW 3) and relied upon certain documents in support of their contentions. 5. Having heard the learned (counsel for the parties and having considered the entire evidence on the record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, aequitted the accused-respondents in the aforesaid complaint cases vide his aforesaid impugned judgments; and orders. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred these appeals against the same. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on the record. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents in all the aforesaid complaint cases, mainly on the grounds that the accused- respondents had no mensrea to make default in payment of the amount in question, that the Factory was running in loss and that the State Government had permitted them to pay the amount in, question in instalments. 7. It can atonce be un-hesitatingly expressed that none of the grounds is tenable in the eye of law. 8. Paragraph 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 reads as under : "38. 7. It can atonce be un-hesitatingly expressed that none of the grounds is tenable in the eye of law. 8. Paragraph 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 reads as under : "38. Mode of payment of contributions - (1) 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 employee's 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." The above paragraph is mandatory and cast an obligation on the employer to pay the contributions and administrative charges within fifteen days of the close of every month to the Fund. 9. Section 14 (1-A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 reads as under : "14 (1-A) An employer who contravenes, or makes default in complying with the provisions of section 6 or. clause (a) sub-section (3) of section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges, or paragraph 38 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 (three years) but- (a) which shall be less than (one year and a fine of ten thousand rupees) 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 six months and a fine of five thousand rupees, in any other case); 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." 10. This sub-section makes it abundantly clear that the contravention of or default in complying with the provisions of section 6 or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 or paragraph 38 of the Scheme automatically results in the completion of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment. This is the reason why Explanation-I below section 405 of the Indian Penal Code appears to have been added. Explanation-I of section 405 of the Indian Penal Code runs as under : "Explanation-I :-A person being an employer, who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid." The question of mensrea in respect of the statutory obligation does not arise. The Act and the Scheme are self contained Code. It was a legal obligation of the accused-respondents to deposit the amount within time. Even if the accused-respondents deposited the amount in question after the expiry of the period they were liable for the offence punishable under section 14 (1-A) of the Act. The Act comes into operation by its own vigour. It applies, if the conditions are satisfied. Its operation is not dependent on any decision being taken by the authorities under the Act. It depends on its own provision. Mensrea is not the essential element for the offence under section 14 (1-A) of the Act or the Scheme. Mere contravention of default in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act or the Scheme is sufficient. Reliance is placed upon M/s, S. H. Salve Kadam and Co. Nipani v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, 1981 Lab. IC 568. 11. In all cases not covered by sub-section (1) of section 14, the criminal intention is not the essential element of the offence under the Act or the Scheme. For all this, reliance is placed upon Provident Fund Inspector Panipat v. Ram Kumar, 1983 Lab. Nipani v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, 1981 Lab. IC 568. 11. In all cases not covered by sub-section (1) of section 14, the criminal intention is not the essential element of the offence under the Act or the Scheme. For all this, reliance is placed upon Provident Fund Inspector Panipat v. Ram Kumar, 1983 Lab. IC 7l7, wherein Radhakrishna v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Indore, AIR 1967 MP 157 , Kunhipaly v. Regional Provideiat Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum, (1966) 1 Lab LI 642, Associated Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kerala, (1963) 2 Lab. LJ 652 = AIR 1964 SC 314 , State of Bihar v. Bhadami (1959) 1 Lab. LJ 157 = AIR 1959 Pat. 9 . 12. Therefore, the findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the accused-respondents had no intention to contravene or make default in complying with the provisions of the Act or the scheme is not sustainable. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant to this effect is correct The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents otherwise than this is not acceptable. The Act and the Scheme are social and beneficial legislation. They are meant for the benefit of the employees. The Court must not contenance any subterfuges to defeat the provisions of such a social legislation. F. G. Vakharia v. R.P.F. Commissioner, (195,7) 1 LLJ 448 Bom. Such legislation needs beneficial construction P. F. Commissioner v. Shibu Metal Works, AIR 1965 SC 1076 = (1965) 1 LLJ 473 . The accused-respondents were legally bound to pay the amount in question within the prescribed period. They could not and cannot take resort to the plea of un-avoidable circumstances of any sort for non-payment of the amount in question within the prescribed time. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents otherwise than this is not tenable. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the State Government had no right, authority or jurisdiction to permit the accused- respondents to pay the amount in question in instalments. For this purpose, while withdrawing the attention of the Court to section 20 of the Act, he has argued that it is not the State Government but the Central Government alone which has been given power to give direction. His contention appears to be correct. 14. The accused-respondents have subsequently deposited the amount in question. For this purpose, while withdrawing the attention of the Court to section 20 of the Act, he has argued that it is not the State Government but the Central Government alone which has been given power to give direction. His contention appears to be correct. 14. The accused-respondents have subsequently deposited the amount in question. They have been undergoing the trauma of the protracted judicial proceedings for about 17 years. The following chart will show the amount involved in Criminal Appeal Nos.2318 of 1979, 2319 of 1979 and 2320 of 1979 respectively : Criminal Appeal No. 2318 of 1979 : Month Provident Fund Admn. Charge Family Pension August 11870-25 611-60 1331-50 September 11549-25 597-70 1301-25 October 10899-25 592-05 1225-95 Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 1979 : February 9835-50 505-75 1093-00 Criminal Appeal No. 2320 of 1979 November 11119-50 572-75 1284-50 December 10223-75 531-25 1131-25 January 11396-25 554-55 1152-50 15. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that a fine of Rs. 5000/- each on respondents no. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeals No. 2318 of 1979 and 2320 of 1979 each and that of Rs. 2000/- each on respondents no. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No, 2319 of 1979, that is, total Rs. 24,000/- (rupees twenty four thousand) will meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine, each accused except the accused no. 1 shall undergo rigorous improsonment for two months. 16. In the result the three appeals succeed and are allowed. The acquittal of the accused respondents by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in the aforesaid cases is set aside. The accused-respondents are convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The fine will be paid within a period of three months from this date and thereafter the same shall be paid to the Fund established under the Scheme to the credit of the employees in respect of whom the defaults were committed by the accused-respondents. Appeal allowed.