Judgment B. N Agrawal, J. This application and Cr. Miso, No. 582/ 87, 581/87 and 507/87 are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law is involved therein. It appears that in relation to different periods the officer of the Board failed to deposit the employees contribution to their provident fond with regard to the employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board. For different periods different prosecutions have been launched. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of these four applications has pressed two points Firstly, it has been submitted that the prosecution is barred under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Provident Fund Inspector submitted that the offence being continuing one, the prosecution cannot be said to be barred by limitation. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Prasad ors. v. State of Bihar ors. (1985 P. L.J. R. 271), wherein it was held that the offence being continuing, there prosecution cannot be said to be barred by limitation. In may view this paint is squarely severed by the decision of this Court and as such the prosecution cannot be quashed on this ground. Learned counsed appearing on behalf of the petitioners next contended that all the accused person are Officers of the Bihar Electricity Board, which has been constituted under section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act. It is said that the petitioners being the officers of the said Corporation are public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Penal Code by virtue of clause 12 thereof. It is also said that it was a part of the official duty of the officers to deposit the amount in question. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Provident Fund Inspector submitted that the offence cannot be said to have been committed by the accused person in discharge of official duty. In my view, the Act, of the accused persons complained of and the discharge of official duty is co related, as such the petitioners are entitled to claim protection under section 197 of the Code and the section as required under section 197 of the Code having not been obtained, the prosecution of the petitioners is said to be quashed. In my view, the Act, of the accused persons complained of and the discharge of official duty is co related, as such the petitioners are entitled to claim protection under section 197 of the Code and the section as required under section 197 of the Code having not been obtained, the prosecution of the petitioners is said to be quashed. In the result, these four applications are allowed and the prosecution of the petitioners in all four cases is hereby quashed. Applications allowed.