THOMAS Vs. INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and the respondent in both the petitions are the same. In S.T. Nos. 102 & 115 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is the accused. Respondent who filed the two complaints is the Inspector of Plantations, Nedumangad. Petitioner is the proprietor of Ponmudi Tea Estate. In S.T. 102/84 the offence alleged is violation of the provisions of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 and the rules made thereunder in not providing various facilities to the labourers. In S.T. 115/84 the offence is violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder in the matter of payment of wages to the labourers. The two petitions are for quashing the proceedings in those two cases in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court.

(2.) In Crl. M.C. 608/85, the petitioner relies on two grounds in support of his prayer, namely, (1) In C.M. A. 114/82 before this Court he was appointed as receiver to manage the tea estate as per order dated 15-11-1982 and therefore he could be prosecuted only after obtaining leave of the court, and (2) The respondent who filed the complaint is not competent to do so under S.39 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951. In Crl. M.C. 610/85 the second ground is not available and the complaint is sought to be quashed only for want of sanction from court.

(3.) The fact that the petitioner was the sole receiver during the relevant periods is not in dispute. That the prosecutions are for acts or omissions in the discharge of the official duties as receiver appointed by a competent court is also admitted. If so the question is only whether leave of court is necessary for prosecution or in other words prosecution without leave of court is bad. If leave of court is a condition precedent to a valid prosecution, its absence is a matter affecting the jurisdiction of the court to try the case.