AVANTI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to challenge the order of issue of process for an offence under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 read with the Rules framed thereunder. It raises a couple of questions of law for my decision viz. whether the cognizance taken by the learned trial Magistrate was without jurisdiction on account of the complaint being barred by limitation and whether the said complaint is lodged by the Government Labour Officer and the Inspector under the Payment of Bonus Act has been instituted by an authority contemplated under section 30 of that Act and consequently whether the trial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence contained in that complaint.

(2.) The complaint in question was filed on the 15th July, 1986 alleging offences under section 10 read with sections 19, 26 and 27(4) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 read with Rule 4 (a), (b) and (c) of the Rules framed thereunder. It is alleged that the petitioners are the directors of M/s. Avanti Development Company Limited and the Payment of Bonus Act is applicable to the said industry. During the course of the visit of the complainant on the 1st April, 1986, several breaches under the Act were noticed which were punishable under section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act. A copy of the Government Order regarding authorisation of the complainant for filing the complaint was enclosed with the complaint and it was averred that the evidence both oral and documentary shall be produced at the time of hearing and this complaint was lodged by the complainant who is the Government Labour Officer and Inspector under the payment of Bonus Act.

(3.) Shri Naphade, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, contended that the offences in question were punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 4000/- or with both and consequently the period of limitation for filing such a complaint as provided in section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was one year. He pointed out by placing reliance upon breach No. 1 contained in the complaint viz. full payment of bonus for 1982 was not paid, the offence alleged had been committed in the year 1982 and hence the present complaint filed on the 15th July, 1986 was hopelessly barred by limitation and the trial Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of the said complaint. In regard to the averment made in the complaint "During the courses of my visit on the 1st of April, 1986 under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the following breaches were detected.....", he submitted that it could not be held that the complaint was within limitation by virtue of section 469(1)(b) on account of the knowledge of the offence of the complainant on his visit on the 1st of April, 1986. According to him the complainant could not be termed as a person aggrieved so as to claim the benefit of section 469(1)(b) for the starting point of the period of limitation from the date of the knowledge of the said offence by the complainant. According to him the only person the would be aggrieved would be the employees of the petitioners and not the complainant. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of Shri Naphade, it will be convenient to reproduce the provisions of section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :-