SHAILESH AYYANGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused praying this Court to set aside the order dated 21.07.2016, where under the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - V, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8402/2016 took cognizance and issued summons.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri. Joseph Antony, learned counsel for the petitioner for JSM Law Partners on behalf of Monika Patel, as per the complaint averments a inspection was done in the premises of the Distributor and Carrier Agency of the petitioner by the Labour Inspector on 30.10.2015 under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). It is alleged that when the said premises was inspected, there were some lacunas and violation of the said Act and that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. On the basis of the said facts and circumstances, a complaint was prepared dated 18.05.2016 and as per Annexure - A, the same has been filed before the Court on 06.06.2016. He further submitted that as per Section 32 of the Act, the said complaint has to be made within six months from the day on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. But the complaint came to be filed belatedly on 06.06.2016 beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the said complaint which has been entertained by the Court below is not in accordance with law and it is beyond the limitation period. Further it is submitted that if a complaint has been filed beyond the limitation period, the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance without there being any proper explanation for condonation of delay. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sarah Mathew V. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr.K.M.Cherian and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 62 and also the decision in the case of Som Mittal V. Government of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 75 He further submitted that the said limitation itself does not give any cause to take cognizance by the Court below. Further it is submitted that the Company is not made as accused along with the Managing Director or any other person. In order to make the persons who are working in the company liable vicariously, the company has to be made as party to the criminal proceedings. Then only cognizance can be taken and the case can be proceeded with. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609. It is submitted that the present accused is the Managing Director and in view of Section 3 of the Act, he is exempted from the application of the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that the accused petitioner does not come within the purview of the Act in view of the exemption granted under Section 3(h) of the Act. He also submitted that though there are no specific averments regarding the violation, the Court below has wrongly taken the cognizance. Further it is submitted that even at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind and taken cognizance. In that light, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order of the Court below.