K B KOTAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.5701 of 2005 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for the alleged offence under Sections 3(1)(2) read with Rule 4 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act".)

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is the Managing Director, second petitioner is the Regional Manager and the third petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act and having 41 branches all over India and its head office is situated at Mumbai. THE main business activities of the third petitioner company is to provide security for the nationalised and private banks to carry their cash to the respective ATM Branches. It is further submitted that the third petitioner company is also registered under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that prior to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 06.06.2005 and in that show-cause notice it is specifically mentioned that the third petitioner is involved in the business of cash management to the leading banks, viz., ICICI, HSBC, ABN Amro, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Bank of India and during the course of their business activities, the petitioners are using the motor vehicles for carrying the cash and handing over the same to the respective ATM Centres of the banks and there were Executives, Junior Executives, ATM operators, drivers, armed guards, Loaders, Retainers with gun etc. were working in the company. It is further submitted that in the show-cause notice it is also mentioned by the authorities to the effect that the petitioners were carrying goods in the vehicles of the company. THE learned counsel for the petitioners further brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have given a specific reply dated 05.07.2005 to the above said show-cause notice dated 06.06.2005 and wherein it is specifically mentioned by the petitioners that the petitioners were using their vehicles for not carrying any passengers or goods and they were only handing over the cash for the banks and they were mainly engaged in providing security to the cash which is taken to the respective ATM Centres. It is further contended by the learned counsel that in the complaint, there is absolutely no reference about issuance of show-cause notice as well as reply given by the petitioners. THE learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the reading of the provision under Section 2(g) of the Act specifically mentions about carrying passengers or goods and therefore, if at all any complaint to be preferred by the authorities concerned, viz., the respondent herein they have to prima facie satisfy the requirement to the effect that the petitioners were engaged in carrying the goods and the petitioners as admittedly were engaged in providing security and protection for carrying cash to the respective ATM Centres of the Banks and as such the third petitioner company would not come within the purview of the provisions of the Act. THE learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena V. Balaram Prasad Sharma in AIR 2002 SC 2912, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has referred about the definition of goods as held by the Honourable Apex Court in earlier decisions in para 40 of the judgment holding that if any act does not defined "goods" this Court has to refer only the Sale of Goods Act 1930 and further held that to become goods it must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold and is known to the market as such.