JUDGMENT : Sankar Acharyya, J. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by petitioner for quashing of the proceeding of Case No.C-19576 of 2007 under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short E.S.I. Act) pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta. 2. A complaint was filed by the opposite party against the petitioner before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging that the petitioner had failed to pay the employees and employers share of contribution for the period from April, 2006 to June, 2006 within the specified time in respect of the employees work in Golpark Service Station as required under the E.S.I. Act with Rules and Regulations made there under. Therefore, the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the E.S.I. Act Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to petitioner as accused. Then the case was transferred to the 16th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for disposal. 3. Petitioners claim is that before initiation of the proceeding against him he paid arrear dues for the months of April, 2006 and May, 2006 on 20.02.2007 and for month of June, 2006 on 17.08.2007. As such, continuation of that proceeding is abuse of the process of court and the proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of Honble Single Judge of this High Court in the case of D.R. Steel and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2001 (3) CHN 128. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath Kanoria and Others v. State of M.P. and two other cases reported in AIR 1984 SC 1688 and a decision of Honble Single Judge of this High Court in the five cases of Kamala Tea Company and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Another and four cases reported in 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal) 124. 5. According to Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner, as soon as payment of arrear dues was made by the petitioner the subsequent filing of complaint against him for non-payment of arrear dues of E.S.I. contribution became inconsequential. Mr. 5. According to Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner, as soon as payment of arrear dues was made by the petitioner the subsequent filing of complaint against him for non-payment of arrear dues of E.S.I. contribution became inconsequential. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the E.S.I. advanced his arguments that just on failure to make payment of E.S.I. contribution, the petitioner made himself liable to be prosecuted under Section 85 (a) of the E.S.I. Act and at best the factum of such belated payment long after expiry of statutory period may be taken into consideration as a circumstance before awarding any sentence in the trial court if the proceeding ultimately culminates into a conviction. 6. In the instant case it is undisputed that the petitioner though liable, failed to pay employees and employers shares towards contribution under the E.S.I. Act within the scheduled time for the period from April, 2006 to June, 2006. Petitioners claim of payment of said dues before lodging complaint against him is also not denied in this case by the E.S.I. - opposite party. 7. Having gone through the decision reported in 2011 (3) CHN 128 (Supra) it appears that the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were under consideration of the High Court in that decision. In paragraph 8 of that reported decision it was observed "8. It has been set at rest by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Suman Sethi v. Ajay Kumar Churiwal & Anr., 2000 (2) SCC 380 that if the cheque amount is paid within the notice period or before the complaint is filed, the legal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ceases to be operative and for the recovery of other demands such as compensation, costs, interests etc., separate proceeding would lie". 8. In my opinion, the object of Negotiable Instruments Act and Employees State Insurance Act are different. E.S.I. Act is a social and welfare legislation for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury etc. Ratio of the decision reported in 2011 (3) CHN 128 (Supra) is not applicable in this case according to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. In AIR 1984 SC 1688 (Supra) question of limitation in case of launching prosecution for non-payment of employers contribution to the provident fund was dealt with. Ratio of the decision reported in 2011 (3) CHN 128 (Supra) is not applicable in this case according to the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. In AIR 1984 SC 1688 (Supra) question of limitation in case of launching prosecution for non-payment of employers contribution to the provident fund was dealt with. Such question of limitation is not involved in the instant case. 10. In 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal) 124 (Supra) matter of delayed deposit of employees contribution towards provident fund was considered. In paragraph 22 of that reported decision Honble Single Judge held, "22. It clearly emerges from the aforesaid discussion that there is no such law, nor any decision which conclusively dictates that in case of subsequent payment of the amount of employees share of contribution towards P.F., however, belated it might be, the criminal prosecution must be quashed. It is rather the settled position of law that subsequent payment does not by itself condone the lapse but certainly is a factor to be taken into consideration at the subsequent stage and most certainly at the time of imposition of punishment, if at all". 11. In this case relating to delayed payment of employers share under the E.S.I. Act also similar view is considered as appropriate. The Latin maxim "Factum infectum fiery nequit" (A thing done cannot be undone) is applicable here. In my opinion, there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor abuse of process of court in taking cognizance by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the offence punishable under Section 85 (a), E.S.I. Act against the petitioner in the case No.C-19576 of 2007. Arguments advanced by Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party is accepted. 12. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is considered as devoid of merits. The application of the petitioner for quashing of proceeding is dismissed. No order as to costs is passed. 13. Interim order passed earlier, stands vacated. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties or their advocates on record in compliance of usual legal formalities.