( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment of an Appellate court, whereby the learned Appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners passed by the Trial Court in connection with the offence punishable under the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: "the accused No. 1, M/s, Nascent Laboratory (Private) Limited occupier of m/s Pharmachem Laboratory is an establishment covered under the employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Accused smt. Balaka Nath, Chairman along with Sudhamoy Nath, Managing director, at all material times were person in-charge of the establishment and were responsible to conduct its business and in discharge of such responsibility took part in running of the said business. The accused persons being the employers failed to pay the contribution amounting to Rs. 2,238/-for the month of October, 1988, and as such they are guilty for commission of offences punishable under section 14 (1a)/14 (2) read with section 14a (1)of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. " ( 3 ) IN the Trial the accused persons were charged under section 14 (1a)/14 (2)read with section 14a (1) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act and the prosecution examined two witnesses, P. W. 1 Sri S. K. Das, who formally made the complaint in Court and P. W. 2 Sri J. C. Dey, the concerned Inspector, who detected the default and two documents, viz. the petition of complaint and the sanction order were exhibited being marked exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court found both the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under section 14 (1a)/14 (2) read with section 14a (1) of the Employees' Provident fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, convicted them thereunder and sentenced the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Balaka Nath to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and both the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default while the accused Balaka Nath was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and distress warrant was directed to issue against the accused company. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence was challenged in a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, but the learned Sessions Judge upheld both the order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) MR. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence was challenged in a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, but the learned Sessions Judge upheld both the order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) MR. Shekhar Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assailed the order of conviction and sentence on the ground, the mere allegation in the petition of complaint and in the sanction order, ipso facto, do not establish the offence alleged and in a case of this nature it is required for the prosecution to produce the relevant documents to show that there was actually a default. Mr. Basu further submitted, Court has illegally took into consideration the result of the 7a proceedings in respect of which no document was produced during the trial. According to Mr. Basu as far as the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Balaka Nath is concerned there is nothing on record even no whisper in the deposition of the two witnesses that she was responsible to the company for carrying out its day-to-day business to attract the vicarious liability. Lastly, Mr. Basu submitted that already the default amount has been deposited. Mr. Mihir Kundu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted before this Court that when both the Trial Courts as well as the appellate Court found the petitioners guilty of the offences for which they have been convicted, such findings of the Courts below does not warrant any interference by this Court. ( 6 ) HEARD, the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Considered the impugned judgments and other materials on records, viz. the deposition of the witnesses as well as the exhibits. ( 7 ) IT is true that the concurrent findings of the Court may not be interfered with in all the cases by re-appreciating the evidence, but there is no legal bar for the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction to consider the evidence on records, for the limited purpose, to satisfy itself that there are evidence in support of finding of guilts arrived at by the Trial Court and then confirmed by the Appellate Court and such findings of the Courts below are neither perverse nor unreasonable. ( 8 ) THE question then arises for consideration, as to whether there is any materials on records to make it evident that the petitioner No. 2 was vicariously liable, a question, which both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have never paid any attention. In the instant case, the petitioner No. 2 has been charged with vicarious liability for the offence committed by the establishment. It is very pertinent, while deposing in Court the P. W. 1, the complainant admitted that the petition of complaint is in printed form and he has no previous knowledge about the case and being attached to Barrackpore court as Enforcement Officer, he lodged the complaint on the basis of the sanction accorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Whereas, the P. W. 2, J. C. Dey, the Enforcement Officer only alleged in his evidence on inspection he discovered, the alleged default but in four-corners of his evidence he never alleged as to how the petitioner No. 2 Balaka Nath was connected with such default far less anything as to how she was vicariously liable. There is nothing in the sworn statements of the witnesses during the trial that as to how the accused Balaka Nath was vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. In my view, the finding of guilts as against the said accused has no foundation and is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) DIFFERENT consideration, however, arises in respect of the establishment, the petitioner No. 1 herein. In view of the admitted position that subsequently after conviction the alleged dues have been deposited that shows there was actually a default in payment of Provident Fund dues by the establishment within the stipulated period and the evidence of Enforcement Officer that upon inspection of relevant documents he discovered the default not being challenged by the defence except suggesting the same is not a fact, the case as against the establishment stands proved. ( 10 ) IN the result the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner no. 2, Smt. Balaka Nath stands set aside and she shall at once be discharged from the bail bonds. However, the conviction of the petitioner No. 1, the accused company stands confirmed. The instant revision is thus allowed in part. Appeal allowed in part.