ORDER : 1. The instant Acquittal Appeal has been filed under section 378 of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to order dated 12.07.2006 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in Cr.M.P.No.430/2006, whereby their Lordships have been pleased to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2005 passed by Sri Ajit Kumar Modi, J.M. Ist Class, Seraikella in C/2 case no. 141/1996 corresponding to T.R.No.943/2005, whereby the learned trial court was pleased to acquit the respondents from the charges under section 14(IA), 14(IB) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and also discharged both the respondents from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that respondents were running a school in the name of Harish Chandra Vidya Mandir at Kandra and twenty persons were employed in the institution and the institution comes within the purview of Employees Provident Fund Act and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondent no.1-Subhash Chandra Varshani was the president and respondent no.2-S.B.Singh was the Honorary Secretary and acting manager of the said institution. 3. The Enforcement Inspector of Employees Provident Fund inspected the institution and found that the respondents failed to deposit the provident fund amount of the employees and the employers' contribution for the month of July 1992 to September, 1992. It was also found that the respondents have failed to deposit the insurance amount in the family pension fund for the same period. The respondents have also failed to produce the records for the said establishment of the said period. 4. Thereafter, the Enforcement has filed a prosecution report regarding the same offence to the ACJM, Seraikella, who took cognizance of the offence U/s 14(IA), 14(1B) E.P.F. & M.P. Act and transferred the case for trial and disposal. The acquisitions were explained to the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution produced three witnesses in the case. P.W.1 is Subir Kumar Sarkar, who is clerk in the Provident Fund Commissioner’s Office. He has proved the prosecution report (Ext.1) and sanction order (Ext.2) of the case. 6. The acquisitions were explained to the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution produced three witnesses in the case. P.W.1 is Subir Kumar Sarkar, who is clerk in the Provident Fund Commissioner’s Office. He has proved the prosecution report (Ext.1) and sanction order (Ext.2) of the case. 6. P.W.2 is Rabindra Singh, who is a senior Supervisor in the Provident Fund Commissioner’s Office, who has deposed that respondents have not deposited the provident fund amount in the provident fund office for the period from March, 1982 to December 1992s and they also did not filed monthly return in the office. 7. P.W.3-Maheshwar Prasad Choursia is Assistant Accounts Officer in the of Provident Fund Commissioner’s Office and also the informant of this case, who proved the prosecution report and sanction order (which has already been exhibited as Exts. 1 & 2). He has deposed that the code number of the institution was BR 12503 and he also proved the Provident Fund Code number and allotment order in the name of the School as Ext.4. He has deposed that the respondents have not deposited the E.P.F. amount and also not filed monthly return. He has further deposed that he had inspected the institution 2-3 times, but the institution did not produce the records for inspection before him. He has also proved Form-V filed on behalf of the school as Ext.3. He has further deposed that a proceeding u/s section of E.P.F. Act was initiated and decided against the respondents and they were directed to remove the defects. But the respondents did not comply the order. 8. The defence in support of its case filed the order dated 10.01.2005 passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M.P. Nos. 811,812, 813, 814, 815, 816 & 817 of 2003, which was marked as Ext.A. 9. After hearing the parties, the trial court vide judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2005 passed by Sri Ajit Kumar Modi, J.M. Ist Class, Seraikella in C/2 case no. 141/1996 corresponding to T.R.No.943/2005 acquitted the respondents from the charges under section 14(IA), 14(IB) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and also discharged both the respondents from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 10. 141/1996 corresponding to T.R.No.943/2005 acquitted the respondents from the charges under section 14(IA), 14(IB) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and also discharged both the respondents from the liability of their respective bail bonds. 10. Thereafter, the appellant has preferred Cr.M.P. No.430/2006 seeking leave to appeal, which was allowed by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 12.07.2006 and leave was granted to the appellant to file acquittal appeal. Accordingly, the instant Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 12. It appears that the instant appeal has been filed on 21.08.2006 and vide order dated 14.11.2006, this appeal was admitted for Hearing. On 15.01.2018, this appeal was listed before this Bench and at the request of learned counsel for the respondents the matter was directed to be listed on 24.01.2018 and thereafter on 03.04.2018. On 03.04.2018 since respondents were not present, so the matter was directed to be listed on 10.04.2018. 13. Today, when the case is called out, learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the trial court has failed to apply his mind properly and has wrongly acquitted the respondents from the charges framed against them. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of Ext. A, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. 15. After going through the entire records and the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, it appears that the trial court has failed to consider that the respondents were defaulter in complying the provisions U/s 14 (IA), 14(IB) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The learned Magistrate has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested upon him and without discussing the provisions of the law involved in the case has acquitted the respondents. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is, hereby, set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh hearing of the case and to pass judgment in accordance with law. 17. The trial court is directed to issue notice to the appellant as well as the respondents to give an opportunity to them to present their case in the trial court. 18. Let the order be communicated to the trial court. 19. 17. The trial court is directed to issue notice to the appellant as well as the respondents to give an opportunity to them to present their case in the trial court. 18. Let the order be communicated to the trial court. 19. The office is also directed to remit the entire lower court records to the trial court.