C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) has preferred this revision petition against order dt. 15. 5. 1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore in Criminal Case No. 172/89 whereby he has dropped the criminal proceedings against the opposite party. ( 2 ) A complaint was laid in the Court of J. M. F. C. Indore by the Corporation stating therein that the opposite party No. 1 M/s. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. is limited company registered under Companies Act. Opposite Party No. 2 Kailash Agarwal is the Managing Director and opposite party No. 3 R. K. Gupta is Manager of opposite party No. 1, and are the principal employers within the meaning of S. 2 (17) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the complainant, under 5. 40 of the Act read with Regulation No. 31 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) the principal employer was under obligation to pay in respect of every employee whether directly employed by him or by or through an immediate employer, both the employers contribution and the employees contribution. It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has deducted contribution from the wages of the employees for the period from 1983 to June 1986 and the amount deducted is Rs. 35,15,269. 25 P. According to the complainant, the aforesaid amount ought to have been deposited in the account of the respective employee along with employers contribution amounting to Rs. 74,07,998. 00. The complainant has further stated that out of the above sum deducted from the employees and to be deposited along with employers share, the accused-opposite party has deposited employers contribution amounting to Rs. 18,14,941. 34 only employees share and Rs. 12,98,595. 80 as employerts share. According to the complainant, balance of the amount of employees contribution deducted from wages of the employees for the period comes to Rs. 17,00,328. 21 and employers contribution comes to Rs. 61,09,382. 20. It is alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid amount has not been deposited by the accused- opposite party in the account of Corporation. According to the complainant, balance of the amount of employees contribution deducted from wages of the employees for the period comes to Rs. 17,00,328. 21 and employers contribution comes to Rs. 61,09,382. 20. It is alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid amount has not been deposited by the accused- opposite party in the account of Corporation. According to the complainant, non-deposit of the aforesaid amount and its dishonest use by them make them liable for prosecution and punishable for committing an offence under S. 406, I. P. C ( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Magistrate, an application was filed on behalf of the accused-opposite party for dropping the case. As stated earlier, by the impugned order dt. 15. 5. 1989 the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings holding that he is not competent to try the case, as the same is related to non-payment of the employees and employers contribution in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as also on the ground that sanction for prosecution as provided under 5. 86 of the Act has not been obtained. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused persons were being prosecuted for committing an offence under 5. 406, I. P. C. and not for violation of any provisions of the Act as such the learned Magistrate was competent to try the case. He further submitted that S. 86 of the Act which inter alia provides for previous sanction of Insurance Commissioner or of such other officer of the Corporation as may be authorised in this behalf by the Director General of Corporation, does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case as the accused persons are not being prosecuted for an offence under the Act. ( 5 ) NO body appears on behalf of the accused persons-opposite party to resist the application. ( 6 ) 5. 405, I. P. C defines criminal breach of trust. ( 5 ) NO body appears on behalf of the accused persons-opposite party to resist the application. ( 6 ) 5. 405, I. P. C defines criminal breach of trust. Explanation 2 which is relevant for the purpose is being quoted hereinafter: A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the employees State Insurance Fund hold and administered by the Employees State Insurance Corporation established under the Employeest State Insurance Act 1948, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. The offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is punishable under 5. 406, I. P. C A reading of the complaint clearly shows that the accused persons were being prosecuted for committing an offence punishable under S. 406, I. P. C The learned Magistrate totally misdirected himself by saying that the accused persons are being prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the Act. It is true that under the provisions of the Act the employer has, certain obligations in respect of payment of employers contribution as also employees contribution and their deposits. However, Explanation 2 to S. 405, I. P. C in specific terms provides that the employer deducting the employees contribution from the wages payable to the employees for credit to the Employees State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 shall be deemed to have entrusted with the amount of the contribution so State deducted by him and if he makes default in the, payment of such contribution to the said fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, the accused persons have deducted employees contribution from the wages but it is not deposited in the Employees State Insurance Fund along with employers contribution. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, the accused persons have deducted employees contribution from the wages but it is not deposited in the Employees State Insurance Fund along with employers contribution. This act of the accused persons comes within the mischief of Explanation 2 to S. 405, I. P. C and the same is punishable under S. 405, I. P. C As the accused persons are being tried for an offence under 5. 406, I. P. C, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was competent to try such offence and the view taken by him to the contrary, is not sustainable. Having held that the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted for an offence under S. 406, I. P. C, the other ground for dropping entire proceedings i. e. non-sanction of the prosecution of the accused under S. 86 of the Act also does not survive. It may be stated that under 5. 86 of the Act sanction is required only in cases when the accused persons are prosecuted for an offence under the provisions of the Act. As I have held that the accused persons are being prosecuted for an offence under S. 406, I. P. C, bar on S. 86 of the Act does not stand in way of the complainant to prosecute the accused persons. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision application is allowed. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 15. 5. 1989 passed in Criminal Case No. 172/89 is hereby set aside. The record of the case may be sent back to the court below expeditiously. Revision allowed. .