Criminal Misc. No.M-23449 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-23449 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.11.2008 Harjinder Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Harnek Singh, Advocate for Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab **** S. D. ANAND, J. Concededly, the petitioners are/were in employment of the Punjab State Electricity Board as Engineers. They have nothing at all to do with the deduction of the Provident Fund out of the monthly payment made by the contractor to the daily wagers whom the latter ( contractor) had employed. On a complaint filed by the Provident Fund authorities, the petitioners have been charged sheeted for an offence under Section 406 IPC. In the face of the conceded factual position (that the petitioners had nothing at all to do with the deduction of the contribution, out of the wages payable to labourers), this Court put it to the learned State counsel to indicate how could a charge under Section 406 IPC be sustained against them. It would be apparent from a perusal of the charge sheet Criminal Misc. No.M-23449 of 2008 -2- *** framed against the petitioners that they had been entrusted with the indicated amount representing the employees' share of the provident fund and they converted the same to their use. The particulars of the charge are illogical, by any stretch of interpretation. It is not even the prosecution plea that the any PF deduction had been made by the petitioners from out of the wages payable to the labourers. Infact, the Provident Fund authorities alleged violation of relevant provisions of the Provident Fund Act on the premise that the impugned default had been committed by not deducting EPF contribution from out of the wages paid to the labourers. That allegation is thoroughly inconsistent with the particulars indicated in the charge which (particulars) indicates that the petitioners had converted the indicated amount, representing EPF share of the labourers, to their own use. Learned State counsel, after perusing the file, states that she is not in a position to argue in favour of the sustainability of the charge. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 12.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar and also order dated 2.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar shall stand quashed. The petitioners shall stand discharged. November 11, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE