udgment.- These are four connected appeals preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in C.C.Nos. 332 to 335 of 1964, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate who also happens to be the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Hyderabad. Originally the Provident Fund Inspector laid a complaint before the Labour Court against the respondent, M/s. Ramalingeswara Rice & Oil Mill, Ghanapur, Warangal District, represented by its Occupier, Sri Kavukoti Eknath, under section 14 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 and paragraph 76(e) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The learned Magistrate “dismissed” the complaint on the ground that the respondent was once convicted for non-payment of contributions and that he cannot once again be charge-sheeted for non-payment of administrative charges. The short order of the learned Magistrate reads thus: “These 4 complaints relate to non-payment of administrative charges. The accused has been prosecuted for non-payment of contributions under rule 76 read with rule 38 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme in C.C.Nos. 328 to 331 of 1964. These cases i.e., C.C.Nos. 332 to 335 of 1964 also relate to the same period for which the accused has been prosecuted in C.C. Nos. 328 to 331 of 1964. According to rule 38 referred to above the accused has to pay the contributions along with administrative charges. Non-payment of contributions and administrative charges is one offence. They cannot be split up specially when the accused is being prosecuted for non-payment of contributions. As the accused pleaded guilty, and has been convicted and sentenced in C.C.Nos. 328 to 331 of 1964, I am of the opinion that these four cases (C.C.Nos. 332 to 335 of 1964) cannot be brought separately. Hence these 4 cases are dismissed. Pronounced in open Court. Sd/-Presiding Officer.” Mr. Gangadhara Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has argued that the order of the Magistrate is erroneous and does not accord with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. It may be convenient to look into the necessary provisions. Section 5 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act relates to Employees’ Provident Fund Schemes and it reads: “5. It may be convenient to look into the necessary provisions. Section 5 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act relates to Employees’ Provident Fund Schemes and it reads: “5. Employees’ Provident Fund Schemes.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,frame a Scheme to be called the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident funds under this Act for employees or for any class of employees and specify the establishments or class of establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply and there shall be established, as soon as may be after the framing of the Scheme, a Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Scheme. (A) * * * * (1-B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Scheme framed under sub-section (1) may provide for all or any of the matters specified in Schedule II.” Schedule II, Clause 3 of the Act reads as follows: “The payment by the employer of such sums of money as may be necessary to meet the cost of administering the Fund and the rate at which and the manner in which the payment shall be made.” “Notes: See paragraph 39 of the Scheme.” It may be convenient to extract the relevant paragraphs in the Scheme. Paragraph 38 of the Scheme deals with the mode of payment of contributions and reads as follows: “(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 total employer’s and employees’ contributions as may be fixed by the Central Government, he shall, within fifteen days of the close of every month, pay to the Fund by separate bank drafts or cheques on account of contributions and administrative charges.” Paragraph 39 of the Scheme deals with fixation of administrative charges and it reads thus: “The Central Government may, in consultation With the Central Board and having regard to the resources of the Fund available for meeting its normal administrative expenses, fix the percentage of administrative charges payable under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 38 above.” Penal provisions are incorporated in paragraph 76 and they read as follows: 76.-Punishment for failure to pay contributions, etc.-If any person (a) fails to pay any contribution which he is liable to pay under this Scheme, or (b) 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 (c) 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 (d) 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 (e) is guilty of contravention of or non-compliance 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.“ The penal provision in the Act is section 14 and it reads as follows: ”14. Penalties-(1) Whoever, for the purpose of avoiding any payment to be made by himself under this Act or under any scheme or of enabling any other person to avoid such payment, knowingly makes or causes to be made any false statement or false representation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. (2) A scheme framed under this Act may provide that any person who contravenes or make default in complying with, any of the provisions thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 2-A. ***** 3. * * * * * The Act and the Scheme are designed to protect the interests of the employees by compulsorily making the employees and the employers to contribute to the Provident Fund. This fund is intended to encourage the stabilization of steady labour force in Industrial Centres. Under the Scheme the employer in the first instance pays both the contribution payable by himself and also on behalf of the member employed by him directly or through any agency and deducts the contribution of the employee from the wages payable to him. The contribution of the employee should be not less than 6¼ per cent. of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance and to the same extent should be the contribution by the employer also. A fund called as Employees’ Provident Fund is created under section 5 of the Act and a Scheme also is framed for the administration of the fund so collected from out of the contributions. Section 5 (1-B) of the Act provides for framing a Scheme for all or any of the matters specified in Schedule II. Schedule II of the Act relates to the matters for which provision may be made in the Scheme in accordance with what is stated in section 5 (1-B) of the Act. Paragraphs 38 and 39, which have been extracted above deal with the mode of payment of contribution and also fixation of administrative charges. In this case prosecution was launched against the respondent as he failed to pay the administrative charges, 3 per cent. Paragraphs 38 and 39, which have been extracted above deal with the mode of payment of contribution and also fixation of administrative charges. In this case prosecution was launched against the respondent as he failed to pay the administrative charges, 3 per cent. of the total contributions of both the employer and the employees for the period from October, 1961 to December, 1961 as required under paragraph 38 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme. Mr.N.K. Acharya, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that he is not questioning the right of the Provident Fund Commissioner to collect the administrative charges on the basis of the aggregate contribution made by the employer and the employees. His case is that when he has already been prosecuted for non-payment of contribution he cannot once again be prosecuted for non payment of administrative charges as the contribution to be made by him would also include the administrative charges. Mr. Gangadhara Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relied upon paragraph 38 of the Scheme to show that the administrative charges are district and separate from the contributions contemplated under sections 5 and 6 of the Act and, therefore, proceedings were rightly initiated against the respondent. It is necessary to see whether if an employer is once prosecuted for non-payment of contributions -can also be prosecuted again for non-payment of administrative charges. Administrative charges are collected at the rate of 3 per cent. of the total contributions of "both the employer and the employees. The liability of an employer to contribute towards the Provident Fund at the rate contributed by the employee is there and that liability is not questioned. The second liability of the employer is to pay on the aggregate amount at the rate of 3 per cent. towards the administrative charges. This percentage is fixed by the Central Government to cover the expenditure incurred for administering the Scheme. Paragraph 38 of the Scheme brings out clearly the distinction between contribution by the employee and the employer from the wages and the administrative charges which are payable by the employer alone on the basis of the total employer’s and the employees’ contribution. The employer may contribute the percentage to be contributed by him towards the Provident Fund but may not contribute towards administrative charges or commit default in the contribution of the administrative charges. The employer may contribute the percentage to be contributed by him towards the Provident Fund but may not contribute towards administrative charges or commit default in the contribution of the administrative charges. The Scheme as framed is designed to treat administrative charges as distinct from and independent of the contribution of the employer towards Provident Fund. Therefore, the failure of an employer either to contribute towards the Provident Fund under sections 5 and (i or his failure to contribute the administrative charges would make him liable for prosecution. The requirements in paragraph 38 are mandatory and an employer has to contribute towards Provident Fund as also pay the administrative charges. He could be prosecuted either for failure to make contributions or failure to pay the administrative charges and if he violates both he could be prosecuted both for non-payment of contribution as well as non-payment of administrative charges. The fact that he was prosecuted earlier for non-payment of contribution will not preclude or estop the Provident Fund Commissioner from proceeding under paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Scheme. The learned Magistrate fell into an error in thinking that the contribution to Provident Fund included administrative charges also. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent in all the four cases is set aside. What the Magistrate probably meant by ‘dismissal’ of the cases was that he was acquitting the accused. The procedure to be followed by the Magistrate is one under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code and either convicts or acquits the accused person and there is no question of ‘dismissing’ the case under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code. For the reasons given above, I set aside the acquittal of the respondent in each of the cases under paragraph 76(e) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 20 in each case, in default simple imprisonment for 5 days in each case. The default sentence of imprisonment if given effect to will run concurrently. The State appeal is allowed. A.B.K. ----- Appeals allowed.