NARESH GOEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 14558/2002 on the file of VI Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, has sought for quashing the criminal prosecution launched against him in the said case.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 represented by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) filed a complaint under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) against Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. represented by U.H. Shenoy, Area Manager, as accused No. 1 and the petitioner herein describing him as Chairman & Chief Executive of Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd., alleging violation of Rules 74, 81(1)(i), 81(2), 81(3), 72, 73 & 82(2) of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), inter alia contending that the Assistant Labour Commissioner inspected the establishment of Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd., situated in J.C. Road. Bangalore, on March 9, 2002 at 14.10 hours and during the course of inspection, he observed contraventions and violation of various rules and accordingly, he prepared an inspection report and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the accused persons calling upon them to show cause as to why prosecution should not be launched against them for such violations and also called upon them to submit compliance report immediately and to produce all the relevant records for verification. In spite of the same, the accused have not rectified the violations nor produced the records. Thus, they have committed offences punishable under Section 24 of the Act.

(3.) Upon presentation of the complaint, learned Magistrate on June 26, 2002, took cognizance of the offence against the two accused persons for offence under Section 32 of the Contract Labour Act, 1979 and directed issuance of summons to the accused persons. After coming to know of the launching of criminal prosecution and the order directing issue of summons, the petitioner-accused No. 2 presented this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that the learned Magistrate has failed to note that the complaint presented before him did not disclose in what manner the petitioner was responsible for running of the establishment at Bangalore and in what manner he was responsible for the offences alleged and without satisfying himself about these aspects of the matter, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to take cognizance of the offence, as such, there is no application of mind by the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance and directing issue of summons. It is also contended that cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 32 of the Contract Labour Act, 1979 itself shows that he has not applied his mind since there is no Contract Labour Act, 1979, but it is only the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Section 32 of the Act does not deal with any of the offence, but on the other hand, Section 32 deals with protection of action under that Act, as such the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and directing issue of summons is bad in law. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to see that necessary averments to prosecute the petitioner as a functionary of the company or the establishment has not been made in the complaint and no case was made out against the petitioner as such, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad in law and thus the' entire criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.