JAGDISH AMRITLAL KARIA Vs. MADHUSUDHAN NAGINDAS HUNDIWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Application has been filed by the petitioner Jagdish Amritlal Karia praying that the proceedings in Case No. 294 of 1984 pending in the Miscellaneous Court of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay, be quashed.

(2.) A few relevant facts may be stated here below : On 8-3-1984 at about 2.30 p.m. one Madhusudan Nagindas Hundiwala, an Inspector appointed under Section 48 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act (Bombay Act No. LXXIX of 1948) visited the office of the petitioner Jagdish A. Karia and his wife Anuradha J. Karia at the J. K. Industrial Estate, Moosa Killedar Street, Bombay. In the office Hundiwala found the Rent Collector Louis E. D'Souza, who was employed by the petitioner Jagdish A. Karia since the last about 3 years on a salary of Rs. 600/- per month. The Inspector found that no records or registers were maintained in respect of the said Rent Collector Louis E. D'Souza and the Rent Collector had attended the office although it was a Sunday. The Inspector stated in his report that the estate of the petitioner Jagdish K Karia and Anuradha J. Karia bad not been registered under the Shops and Establishments Act. The Inspector then submitted a report to his superiors. In due course a complaint was filed on 30-4-1984 in the Court of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Bombay. The Complainant was Hundiwala, the Inspector who had visited the office of the petitioner. The petitioner was charged for contravention of Section 7 (1) read with Sections 52 and 56 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner granted sanction to prosecute under Section 60 (1) of the said Act.

(3.) On the same day, i.e., on 30-4-1984, the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to issue a summons to the petitioner Jagdish A Karia charging him with breach of Section 7 (4) read with Sections 52 and 56 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. It is against this summons and the proceedings taken against him in Case No. 294 of 1984 that the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to exercise its inherent powers for the purpose of quashing the said summons as also the proceedings pending against him.