SUKHJIT PASRICHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition in our opinion has to partly succeed on a short count. The issue is whether the provisions of Sec. 473 of Cr.P.C. would apply and whether the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing a complaint under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (Act for short). The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dtd. 11/9/2017 has condoned the delay of three days.

(2.) We are conscious that a delay of three days would normally be condoned. However the question in this present petition is whether there is lack of such jurisdiction, to condone the delay.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.P. Unnikrishnan and anr. Vs. Puttiyottil Alikutty and anr., (2000) 8 SCC 131 in order to submit that the provisions of Sec. 473 of Cr. P. C. would be applicable when the period of limitation is prescribed in Chapter XXXVI of the Code. In other words, the contention is that Sec. 473 of Cr.P.C. would not apply to the prosecution under the provisions of the Contract Labour Act since there is different period of limitation provided under the virtue of Sec. 27 of the Said Act.