RAMAKRISHNA SHARMA Vs. INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.C. No. 5254/2003 is filed with a prayer to quash the complaint in S.T. No. 901/2003 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Punalur and Crl. M.C. No. 5255/2003 is also for quashing the complaint in S.T.No.900/2003 pending before the same Court. Since the reliefs sought for in both these Crl. M.Cs are similar, the facts and circumstances involved are more or less identical and especially the parties are the same, these matters are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners/accused, who are 7 in number in Crl. M.C. No. 5254/2003, are the Directors of Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd., Plantation House, Pattom Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. The company inter alia owns the Ambanad estate, Kalthuritty in Kollam district, which is principally planted, with tea and rubber which has an extent of about 1000 hectares. The Inspector of Plantations, Nedumangad filed Annexure A complaint against the above Directors dated March 14, 2003 under Section 39 of the Plantation Labour-Act, 1951 (Central Act 69 of 1951)(hereinafter' referred to as 'the Act'), and Rules, 1959 upon which S.T. No. 901/2003 is instituted alleging that the petitioners/accused who are the employers, failed to rectify the defects noted by the complainant and thereby committed the' offence punishable under Section 36 of the above Act. Crl. M.C. No. 5255/2003 is also filed by the same persons with a prayer to quash Annexure A complaint dated March 14,2003 in S.T. No. 900/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Punalur wherein the offence alleged against them is also one punishable under Section 36 of the Act. In both the cases, the 1st respondent inspected the Ambanad Estate owned by the petitioners at about 9.30 a.m. on September 17, 2002 and on detecting certain defects, issued Annexure-B 1 Inspection order-cum-Written order dated September 30, 2002. In both these cases, the Manager of the company issued Annexure B2 reply dated October 24, 2002 to Annexure B1 notice dated September 30, 2002 of the 1st respondent and on receipt of Annexure B2 reply, the 1st respondent issued Annexure CI order dated January 1, 2003 to all the petitioners, by which they were directed to take immediate steps to rectify the defects noted therein and to intimate the facts to his office within 10 days from that order. In the said order, the petitioners were informed that the failure to comply with the orders are offences punishable under the above Act and Rules and they were further warned that if they failed to comply with the orders, prosecution steps would be taken without further notice on the presumption that they had nothing to say in the matter. In both the cases, Annexure C2 reply dated January 20, 2003 was sent to the 1st respondent by the Company Secretary. Thereafter, again on February 13, 2003 at 10a.m., the 1st respondent further visited and inspected the estate and found that certain defects which noticed earlier, and ordered to rectify on the basis of which Annexure D1 Show Cause/Prosecution Notice dated February 21, 2003 was served on all the petitioners to which Annexure D2 reply dated March 3, 2003 was sent by the Chairman of the company. No other petitioners issued any such reply. As the defects noticed and brought to the notice of the accused were not rectified, the 1st respondent preferred Annexure-A complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-I, Punalur for the above offences. The only factual variation among the two cases is with respect to the site (place of occurrence) at which the inspection was conducted by the 1st respondent on September 17, 2002 and February 13, 2003. In Crl. M.C. No. 5254/2003, the allegations are with respect to the failure in rectifying the defects noticed in workers' residential Line Nos. 82, 92 and 55 of Ambanad Estate owned by the company. But in the case of Crl. M.C. 5255/2003, the defects were noticed with respect to the workers' residential Line Nos. 60, 59, 68, 92 and 85 of the very same Ambanad Estate owned by the company of which, the petitioners are the Directors. Except the above aspects, all the factual and legal positions involved in those two cases are identical.

(3.) Going by Annexure I complaint and Annexure Bi inspection order-cum-written order, it can be seen that on September 30, 2002, the 1st respondent had conducted an inspection in the above sites and he had detected 11 defects mentioned in Annexure Bi and the accused were directed to cure the defects in the manner stated in Annexure B1. Since the reply given by the Manager was not satisfactory, the 1st respondent has sent Annexure CI inspection order-cum-written order dated January 1, 2003 to all the petitioners being the Directors of the company to which the Secretary of the company issued Annexure C2 reply dated January 20, 2003. Since the defects noted and brought to the notice of the petitioners were not cured as directed, the 1st respondent then issued; Annexure D1 Show cause/Prosecution notice dated February 21, 2003 to all the petitioners. Thereafter, according to the complainant, though the Chairman of the company sent Annexure D2 reply, the same was not, satisfactory as the defects pointed out were not rectified and the same still exist. In the above circumstances, Annexure A complaint was filed by the 1st respondent on the basis of which cognizance was taken and S.T. Nos. 900/2003 and S.T. No. 901/2003 were instituted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur against the petitioners/accused; In the above Crl. M.Cs, the petitioners/accused are seeking an order quashing the above complaints and all proceedings thereon.