D DASAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the complaint of the second respondent-Labour Inspector, the petitioner has been prosecuted before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, at C. C. No. 20975 of 1997 for offences punishable under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 20 of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 ('act' for short ). The first order of the learned Magistrate in the matter of issuing summons to the petitioner-accused reads thus. " perused. Cognizance taken. Register the case and issue SS to accused by 25-8-1997". On the summons being served, when the petitioner-accused remained absent, the learned magistrate issued NBW. It was then that, on behalf of the petitioner-accused, his Counsel filed an application under Section 253 of the Cr. P. C. , praying for permission for the said learned counsel to plead guilty, on behalf of the petitioner-accused. The learned Magistrate, by the order impugned in this revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. , observed that, since NBW was pending against the accused, and since there was no provision to permit the Counsel to plead guilty on behalf of the accused, the Counsel be directed to keep the petitioner-accused present for further proceedings. In the meantime, NBW was reissued.

(2.) SRI Abdulla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused would submit thus: for the offence punishable under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the maximum punishment is, fine of Rs. 500/ -. For the offence punishable under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, the maximum punishment is, fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Sub-section (5) of Section 20 of the act, calling for imprisonment, does not apply to this case, because it is not even allegation of the complainant that the petitioner-accused had been convicted previously of any offence punishable under the Act. Therefore, for the purpose of the present prosecution, the maximum punishment could be taken as fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/ -. Both these are petty offences for the purpose of Section 206 of the Cr. P. C. and within the meaning of sub-section (2) of the said Section 206 of the Cr. P. C. It was therefore necessary for the learned Magistrate to issue summons under section 206 of the Cr. P. C. , requiring the petitioner-accused, broadly speaking, either to appear in person or by pleader, or even to plead guilty and send the amount of fine specified in the summons. For the sake of brevity, I shall call this kind of summons as special summons. Since the offences punishable under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 20 of the Act are petty offences within the meaning of Section 206 of the Cr. P. C. , the learned Magistrate was bound to issue special summons under Section 206 of the Cr. P. C. This being the position, even when a plea was put forth on behalf of the accused that he would plead guilty through his Advocate, the learned Magistrate erred in declining to accede to this request. This is the submission of petitioner-accused's Counsel Sri Abdulla.

(3.) THE above said contention of Sri Abdulla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is not legally tenable for the following reasons: i would extract sub-section (1) of Section 206 of the Cr. P. C. , before proceeding further: