RANDEEP MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the materials available on record and also the charge sheet laid against the accused in C.C. No.3604/2016.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that on filing of the complaint by the complainant dated 21.06.2016, the case came to be registered. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against accused in C.C. No.3604/2016. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. Whereas, in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the contents of the complaint, where Section 27 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and so also Rules 74 and 78 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules for short), as the offences under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act against these petitioners who arraigned as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. But the complainant ought to have been filed the complaint within a period of three months as per Section 27 of the Act.

(3.) The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Company has not made as party to the proceedings. But Section 10 makes it clear that prohibition of employment of contract labour. It is further contended that the Court below without applying its mind has taken the cognizance of the petitioners which is contrary to law. These are all the grounds urged in the petition and seeking for quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner.