ORDER :

K. Babu, J.

The challenge in the Crl.R.P. is to the order dated 06.07.2024 in CMP No.885/2024 in ST No.5650 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur. The accused preferred the afore petition under Section 239 Cr.PC seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application.

Prosecution Case

2. The accused is the Proprietor of Tasty Nuts Factory, Manali. He deducted the employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund from their salary from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2008 but did not deposit the same with the authority concerned. Therefore, he committed a breach of trust as provided under Section 406 IPC.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even in a case of prosecution under Section 406 IPC, a prior sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner as provided under Section 14-AC of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’ for short) is necessary because the prosecution is sought to be launched on account of the failure or default of the employer in complying with his obligation