GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 30/4/2001 passed in C. C No 325 of 1999 by the Special judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, wherein the first respondent-accused was acquitted for the offence under Sections 85 (a), (e) and (g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the Act ). ( 2 ) THE appellant is the complainant and the first respondent is the accused. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the trial Court. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the complainant, is that the accused is the principal of an establishment known as Sagara gowry (Cleaning Systems) Division, which was brought under the Act with effect from 01-08-1995 following the inspection conducted on the basis of form -01 submitted by the employer on 04-08-1995. During the course of inspection i. e. on 01-08-1995 it was found that the accused had employed 20 employees for wages, that the accused was found carrying on M. C. V. House keeping contract and that the accused failed to pay the contribution under Section 40 of the Act read with Regulation 31 of the E. S. I. (General)Regulations, 1950 covering the period from 01-08-1995 to 31-03-1996 to the tune of Rs. 14,520/- and thus the accused was prosecuted for non-payment of contribution and also for not filing declaration. ( 4 ) IN order to establish its case, the prosecution examined the inspector who inspected the premises of the accused as PW-1 and his assistant as PW-2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P11. Per contra, on behalf of defence the accused himself was examined as DW-1 and got marked exs. D1 to D5. ( 5 ) ON an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and also by following the judgment in E. S. A Corp. , v. Kar. Asbestos Cement Products (1991 (II) LLN. 519) the Court below acquitted the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has come up with the present appeal. ( 6 ) DESPITE the fact that the matter was heard and posted today under the caption for judgment, the learned Counsel for the first respondent is absent. Hence, this Court has no option to pronounce the judgment after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has come up with the present appeal. ( 6 ) DESPITE the fact that the matter was heard and posted today under the caption for judgment, the learned Counsel for the first respondent is absent. Hence, this Court has no option to pronounce the judgment after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. Heard Sri R. N. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, learned Additional public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment and other material on record. ( 7 ) FROM a perusal of the judgment of the Court below coupled with ex. P1, this Court is of the view that the finding of the learned Judge for economic Offences, who decided the case is not correct. Ex. P1 is the employers Registration From under FORM - I. According to the said form, it is clear that the accused employed only four employees during the months of January to July, 1995. But for the month of August, it is clearly mentioned that the accused employed 6 + 14 casual employees. In Column Nos. 12 and 13 of Ex. P1 the accused has clearly mentioned that the total employees working with him as on 01-08-1995 are 4 + 16 casual employees. It is only on the information furnished by the accused, the complainant Corporation issued Code No. i. e. Ex. PS and thereafter passed Ex. P7 order assessing the arrears to be paid with effect from august, 1994. Further, the judgment relied on by the Court below in my considered view cannot have any application to the facts of the present case, as the facts of this case are altogether different. There is no distinction made between an employee and a casual employee. For all purposes the said employees working with the accused as on 01-08-1995 come within the meaning of employees and thus attract the provisions of section 2 (g) of the Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned in this appeal is not correct. Accordingly, the same is set aside. In the light of the said findings, this Court is of the view that the matter can be remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Hence, this Court is of the view that the judgment impugned in this appeal is not correct. Accordingly, the same is set aside. In the light of the said findings, this Court is of the view that the matter can be remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. ( 8 ) IN the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and C. C. No. 325 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad is remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law.