JOSEPH P P Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein namely Assistant Labour Officer filed Annexure A1 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravoor alleging contravention of Section 5A read with Rule 10(A) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and Rules. THE above said complaint was filed under Section 29(3)(b) which fixes a limitation of six months. Even according to the complainant, the offence was committed on 03/04/2008. But the complaint was filed on 13/10/2008, whereas the six months period of limitation expired on 03/10/2008. THE case of the petitioner is that there was no explanation for the delay and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation without hearing the petitioner/accused. It is the contention of the petitioner/accused that the cognizance taken beyond the period of limitation without hearing the accused is illegal in the light of the decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 2311 (State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and Others). THE impugned order taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons to the revision petitioner is accordingly set aside. THE matter shall be remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal according to the law. In case, the first respondent has not explained the delay in filing the complaint, the Court below shall give the first respondent an opportunity to explain the delay and delay, if any, shall be condoned only after giving the petitioner/accused an opportunity of being heard. It shall be open to the petitioner to contend that the delay cannot be condoned by resort to Section 473 CrPC or any other provision of law. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision petition is allowed as above.