..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1363 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 Employees State Insurance Corporation. ..Applicant. Versus M/s.Dilkush Hindu Hotel and 2 Ors. ..Respondents. ... Mr.H.V.Mehta, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for Respondent No.3-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th June, 2008. DATED : 11th June, 2008. DATED : 11th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant ESIC has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in Case No.124/EW/2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.2-orig.accused No.1, who is the owner of respondent No.1-orig.accused No.2 hotel, of the offence under Section 85(a) read with 85(1)(b) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. ..(2).. 2. The case of the complainant is that respondent No.2 is the owner of Dilkush Hindu Hotel. The Hotel was to pay the contribution under the act. As the contributions were not paid for three months from April 2001 to June 2001 within the prescribed time, they came to be prosecuted. 3. I have heard Mr.Mehta the learned Counsel for the applicant-Orig.complainant ESI Corporation. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 4. It is an admitted fact that the contributions were paid though slightly belatedly. The prosecution has examined only one witness. From the evidence on record, there is no material to show that accused No.2 was responsible for the day to day business of the hotel. No oral or documentary evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution. On this ground and other grounds, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the ..(3).. respondent-accused. 5. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)