ORDER R.D. Vyas, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. It is a clear case where the police at least should inquire and if found fit register the offence under Sections 406 and 409 and whatever Section of I.P.C. are applicable to the case looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that under the provisions of Section 5D(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder, Respondents 6 to 9 are under obligation to deduct the employees' share of Provident Fund @ 8.33% out of the wages of the employees every month and along with equal sum which was required to be contributed by the concerned respondents in the Provident Fund Scheme. This is to be done by or before 15th of the close of every month. 3. It is contended that Respondent No. 5 through Respondents 6 to 9 had a statutory duty to remit the amount deducted from the wages of the employees as per Annexure P/1 to the petition. It is said that Rs. 28,24,424 were deducted from the wages of the employees during the relevant period but has not been remitted to the statutory fund/scheme. In that view of the matter it is contended that respondents have not only committed the offence under the Provident Fund Act but also have committed breach of trust in accounting for managing of provident fund deducted from the salary of the employees. 4. If the contentions are right it is a crime for the employers not to pay the provident fund contribution of the employees in the scheme which is kept in trust with them. In such a situation at least they are required to be investigated and tried for the offences. There is no reason as to why the Respondents No. 1 to 3 should not record the offence and investigate. 5. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are therefore, directed to register the crime under whatever provisions of Provident Fund Act as also of I.P.C. which are prima facie proved to have been committed by the respondents and if ultimately there is a material available to charge-sheet them, the same should be done. If any sanction is necessary the same should be obtained from the appropriate authority well in time, 6. This Court's view prima facie emerges from this petition and the record. If any sanction is necessary the same should be obtained from the appropriate authority well in time, 6. This Court's view prima facie emerges from this petition and the record. However, it is open to the Competent Authorities to come to their own conclusions on the material before them. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions. Respondents No. 6 to 9 will pay the cost to petitioner which is quantified at Rs. 10,000 prima facie primarily (sic.) from their own pockets and if ultimately they succeed that they have not committed (sic.) the offence, the same may be given from the source as may be directed by the Court. The security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.