Judgment LOK NATH PRASAD, J. 1. This Cr. Misc. application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is directed, against the order, dated 6-12-1989 passed in Complaint Case No. 243/89 through which cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 409, I. P. C. was taken by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Shri M. P. Shrivastava at Jamshedpur. 2. The facts in short giving rise this revision are that the Opposite party No.2, Shyamlal Bajpayee who was working as an Assistant Teacher of the school known as Peoples Academy H. E. School situated at New Pandra P. S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur. It has been alleged that the aforesaid school was run by a managing committee and the opposite party complainant was appointed as a teacher in the said school from the year 1953 and the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1948 are applicable and the complainant was subscriber of the Provident Fund alongwith other teachers of the school and for the month of April, May and June, 1974, deduction regarding the contributory provident fund to the tune of Rs. 1,282.62 was deducted from the salary of the complainant and other teachers and at the relevant time the petitioner was the head master of the said school. It is also alleged that being the head master he had the duty under law to deposit the deducted provident fund from the salary of the teachers including the complainant in the respective pass-book being maintained in the post office. The petition till his retirement has not deposited the entire amount of the contribution and though he was custodian and domain over the entire money, he has misappropriated the amount for his own use and! benefit and thus committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate after examining the witnesses of the complainant took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 409, I. P. C. against the petitioner and issued summon as against the petitioner to face the trial. The petitioner entered appearance and took the plea that actually the case against the petitioner is not maintainable. But even by impugned order the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and against that order aggrieved by the petitioner filed this application for quashing the cognizance. 4. The petitioner entered appearance and took the plea that actually the case against the petitioner is not maintainable. But even by impugned order the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and against that order aggrieved by the petitioner filed this application for quashing the cognizance. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that actually the school is a minority school and admittedly, the complainant was working as an Assistant Teacher in the said school alongwith others and a sum of Rs. 1,282.62 were deducted from the salary of the teachers for the period April, May and June, 1974. But as for some reason and others and as the funds were not available so deducted, contribution could not be deposited in the account of the pass-book but subsequently, the entire amount was deposited in the year 1975 and so the question of defalcation does not arise. Further more at the relevant time the petitioner was not a Government servant because the school was privately managed school and lastly after retirement of the petitioner the school was taken over by the Government. Thus, Section 409, I. P. C. is not all applicable in the instant case. For the petitioner the main ground of attack is that the case under Section 406, I. P. C. even that of Section 409, I. P. C is not maintainable because there is allegation for non-depositing the contribution of the provident fund and for regulating the deposit, realisation and disbursement etc. There is special Act known as Employees Provident Fund Act and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and under Section 14-A of the said Act the offence is punishable under this special Act if contribution is not being deposited with in the prescribed time. If this so and in fact if special Act in force and applicable then the general Act i.e. provision of Section 406, I. P. C. is not attracted at all. 5. In fact there is much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner because Employees Provident Funds and Misc. If this so and in fact if special Act in force and applicable then the general Act i.e. provision of Section 406, I. P. C. is not attracted at all. 5. In fact there is much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner because Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 is a complete act regulating the deduction, noncompliance of the provisions and even the penal provision had been provided if all deductions that too only for a short peroid, was not deposited under the provision of this general act, i. e., Section 406, I. P. C. will not be attracted and the complainant if at all aggrieved should have filed complaint under the Special Act as mentioned above. 6. So admittedly, the complainant could have proceeded under the special Act for the reasons mentioned above and admittedly, under Section 14-AC there is special protection that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made with the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorsed by the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, in this behalf, by an Inspector appointed under Section 13. Admittedly, this complaint was neither filed by the Inspector appointed under Section 13 of the Act nor filed complaint in writing after obtaining previous sanction of the authorties as mentioned above. In that view of the matter, the entire cognizance is vitiated and bad in law. 7. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in fact during the pendency of this application the complainant died and though this fact has been brought on record and the learned Counsel for the Opposite-party No. 2 was informed about this fact vide order, dated 13-5-1992 to take necessary steps for substitution but surprisingly, the learned Counsel for the Opposite-party No. 2 neither had taken any steps for substitution nor had contested this application and as such it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the complainant died and no substitution was made, the entire complaint abated. Be that it may be it is not necessary to give any specific finding on this point but the reasons mentioned above as the complaint has been filed without obtaining any prior sanction of the authorities or by a competent person as mentioned above, the cognizance is apparantely bad in law and as such the order, dated 6-12-1989 passed by Shri M. P. Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 243/89 is ordered to be quashed and this application is allowed but without any costs. Application allowed and cognizance order quashed