C.A.V. JUDGMENT None turned up on behalf of the appellant. 2. Heard Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013(2) PLJR 276 (SC). It is thought proper to hear learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and to examine the record and Lower Court Records and decide the appeal on its own merit. 4. This is an appeal preferred against order of acquittal passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 931(M)/99, Tr. No. 310/2004 from the charges under section 85 (a) & (e) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. 5. The relevant short fact of the case is that complaint case was filed by the appellant with assertion that on 8.1.1998 inspection was conducted in the business premises (factory) of which respondent no.1 was Managing Director, and during such inspection relevant papers such as Books of Account, attendance and payment register etc. were demanded, but could not be produced, hence, for alleged non payment of the contribution towards insurance of employees for the period 1.1.1989 to 31.1.1996 the complaint was lodged after explanation of acquisition and trial proceeded and to substantiate the assertion on behalf of the appellant altogether three witnesses were examined besides producing list of exhibits. Exhibit – 1 – Complete complaint petition Exhibit – 2 – Complete application form Exhibit – 3 – Show cause notice Exhibit – 4 – Signature of Bimlesh Singh on letter Exhibit – 5 – Inspection report of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. Exhibit – 6 – Signature of Bimlesh Singh on supervision note. 6. The defence has denied the liability but there is no evidence either oral or documentary. 7. Court below on consideration of the materials finding no offence being made out or prosecution case established, acquitted the accused persons. 8. As is evident from the discussion of the trial court and on perusal of the record, though prosecution witness no. 6. The defence has denied the liability but there is no evidence either oral or documentary. 7. Court below on consideration of the materials finding no offence being made out or prosecution case established, acquitted the accused persons. 8. As is evident from the discussion of the trial court and on perusal of the record, though prosecution witness no. 1 namely, Ramkishore Prasad posted as Inspector at the relevant time has proved different documents and in cross examination admits examination of some documents for being satisfied to lodge complaint and mention at the foot of complaint petition, but this statement stands falsified since there is no such reference at the foot of Exhibit – 1, the complaint petition. The court below has also rightly considered the fact that there is no material to indicate any requisition for the relevant time served upon the respondents. 9. It is also evident from the inspection report (Exhibit – 5) that such inspection was never done earlier and P.W.1, in cross examination, also admits that only after, registration and allotment of Code Number to such establishment, there is requirement for payment etc. by them and in any default case can be instituted, but apart from statement of this witness, the documents produced by the prosecution also indicate that there is no such Code Number. 10. There appears no cogent and convincing reason to interfere with the well discussed and reasoned finding of the Trial Court. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.