Criminal Misc. No.M-25120 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-25120 of 2008 Date of decision : 11.11.2008 Khraiti Lal Sharma .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab **** S. D. ANAND, J. M/s Calcutta Construction Company, an establishmnent covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provision Act, 1952, has its site office at GGS Thermal Plant, Ghanauli (Ropar). The contractor over there is under statutory obligation to deduct the employees' share of the provident fund and to deposit into the statutory funds. The amount, thus, deducted out of the wages of the labourers is in the hand of the employer trust. In the course of inspection, it came to the notice of the authorities that the employer ( M/s Calcutta Construction Company) had deducted the employees' share of contribution from their wages for the period 4/97 to 12/99 but had not deposited the amount into the statutory G.P. Fund account. It was on the above allegations that the first informant Paras Ram Inspector, Provident Fund, notified the commission of offence under Sections 406 and 409 IPC to the police. It is apparent from a perusal of Annexure P-2 that the Criminal Misc. No.M-25120 of 2008 -2- **** petitioner was in the employment of Government as Chief Accounts Officer. However, there is no allegation that the payment of wages to the labourers engaged by the contractor was made by means of any pay bills at all. The wages were paid to the labourers by the contractor. The public servant posted on the establishment of a plant had nothing to do with the wages payable by the contractor to the labourers. The petitioner has been charge sheeted by the learned Trial Magistrate for an offence under Section 406 IPC, vide order dated 12.11.2005 (Annexure P-8). A revision filed by the petitioner to challenge that order of charge (Annexure P-8) was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide order dated 2.6.2008 (Annexure P- 9). In view of the conceded position that no amount at all came to be deducted by the petitioner as EPF contribution of the labourers, there is obvious no question of his being accountable for the misappropriation thereof. In the light of the above, 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 petitioner shall stand discharged. November 11, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE