Judgment SABINA, J. 1. This petition is filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for discharge of the petitioner from case FIR no.39 dated February 19, 2000 under Sections 406,408,420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Ropar by setting aside the charge sheet dated November 12, 2005 as well as the order of the learned Additional sessions Judge, Ropar dated June 2, 2008. 2. The prosecution case as noticed by the additional Sessions Judge, Ropar in para No.3 of its judgment, while deciding the revision petition as under: "in brief, the case of the prosecution, is that calcutta Construction Company (hereinafter in short called the contractor)headed by the accused Deepak Chadha entered into an agreement with the Punjab state Electricity Board (hereinafter in short called the PSEB) to supply labourers to do certain duties assigned by the PSEB. It was also agreed between them that some deductions could be made every month on account of EPF from the salaries of the said workers and would be deposited in the office of EPF Commissioner, Chandigarh. In an inspection carried out by the said office, it was detected that though EPF amounting to rs.55,10,742/- was deducted from the salaries of several labourers, yet the same was not further deposited in the office of epf Commissioner. Accordingly, on a complaint of Provident Fund Inspector, chandigarh, the FIR in question was registered against the contractor. During investigation, it was found that all the revisionists who were working with the pseb and who were assigned the duty of facilitating the collection of the EPF deductions and over seeing the deposit of the said deductions with EPF Commissioner, connived with the contractor and misappropriated the above said funds. The deductions in question from the salaries were made from April, 1997 to December 1999, but these were never accounted for. Thus, the revisionists and their co-accused have invited the offence in question. " 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was employed as accounts Officer and petitioner No.2 was the incharge of the Accounts Department at Guru gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar at the relevant time. They were not responsible for making payment to the labour. " 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was employed as accounts Officer and petitioner No.2 was the incharge of the Accounts Department at Guru gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar at the relevant time. They were not responsible for making payment to the labour. In fact, the contractor was to pay the amount for coal handling plant and it was the duty of the contractor in turn to disburse wages to the labour after making requisite deductions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision dated November 11, 2008 in Criminal Misc. No.25120-M/2008 (Annexure P-1 ). 4. The petitioners are employed in the accounts Office of the complainant. Petitioners have not made payment of wages to the labour. The wages were to be paid to the labour by the contractor. The Accounts department only disburses the amount for the work done by the contractor, to the contractor. Petitioners, thus, had nothing to do with the wages payable by the contractor to the labour. In similar circumstances, vide order dated November 11, 2008 (Annexure P-l), charge framed against the petitioners in the said case under Section 406 IPC, was quashed. 5. Accordingly, since the petitioners were not accountable for deduction of the provident fund contribution of the labour, this petition is allowed. Charge Sheet dated November 12, 2005 and order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Ropar dated June 2, 2008 are quashed. Petitioners stand discharged.