R.K. PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is at the instance of the two accused Petitioners R.K. Poddar and P. Rohatgi directed against an order dated August 20, 1973, passed by Sri R.P. Samajdar, Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, Calcutta, in case No. C2581/72 convicting the two accused Petitioners under Sec. 30(1)(c) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each.

(2.) The facts leading on to the case are short and simple. On or about September 1, 1972, the complainant opposite party No. 1 M.N. Roy, State Apprentice Adviser, Government of West Bengal, filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for issue of summon against the accused Petitioners for having committed offence under Ss. 30(1)(c), 30(2)(a)(ii) and 30(2)(b) of the Apprentices Act, 1961. The prosecution case, inter alia, as made out in the petition of complaint is that the complainant is the Additional Director of Industries (Training) and Ex -Officio State Apprenticeship Adviser, Government of West Bengal and the accused Petitioners were the Managing Director and the Administrative Officer respectively of Poddar Automobiles Limited, carrying on business at 113 Park Street, Calcutta -16, having its registered office at 36 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta; that the accused persons are under the statutory obligation to engage 14 apprentices to undergo apprenticeship training in the said company as per notice served on the company under Sec. 8(5) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, by the State Apprenticeship Adviser; that statutory notice bearing No. 2484(1) dated June 26, 1970, was served under Sub -section (3) of Sec. 8 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, on the aforesaid company for engagement of 14 apprentices in different designated trade by the State Apprenticeship Adviser, West Bengal; that thereafter the aforesaid establishment was repeatedly asked to comply with its statutory obligation, but the company remained totally indifferent and totally failed to comply with the requirement of the statute on various pretexts of financial difficulties and labour unrest etc.; that the complaint through press notice on February 13, 1972, directed all industrial establishments to comply with their statutory obligations under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and the said company was also requested to manage the required number of apprentices and submit contracts of apprenticeship for registration on or before April 4, 1972, but the said company again put forward various pretexts and prayed for more time for requirement of apprentices: and that by doing so the said establishment violated the provisions of Sec. 8(3) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, which is punishable under Sec. 30(1)(c) of the said Act. That on the aforesaid allegations the accused were placed on their trial before Sri R.P. Samajdar, Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, Calcutta and in course of the trial, the complainant confined his case to the offence under Sec. 30(1)(c) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, for a contravention of Sec. 8(3) of the Apprentices Act, 1961. The pettiness pleaded not guilty submitting, inter alia, that the prosecution case against the accused persons was not maintainable since no notice was served upon them and since the company had not been made a party; that as per the provisions contained in Sec. 32 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, the company should have been made a party to the case, more so, as the offence is alleged to have been committed by the establishment, viz. the company and as such non -joinder has affected the very basis of the case; that the case is bad also for non -joinder of other directors of the company; and that on merits also the case is not maintainable because of the absence of any mens rea and because the accused persons expressed bona fide their difficulties in appointing the required number of apprentices due to labour unrest. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and several exhibits were proved. Defence examined one witness. As a result of the trial, the learned Magistrate by his order dated August 20, 1973, convicted and sentenced the accused Petitioners as mentioned above. The said order has been impugned and forms the subject, matter of the present Rule.

(3.) Mr. S.D. Banerjee, Senior Advocate, with Messrs N.C. Banerjee, Senior Advocate and Arun Kumar Mukherjee and Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, Advocates appearing in support of the Rule on behalf of the two accused Petitioners, made a submission of four dimensions. Firstly, that the case is not maintainable since no notice was served upon the accused. Secondly, that the company having not been made a party, there has been a non -conformance to Sec. 32 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and the resultant non -joinder vitiated the trial; thirdly, that the case is also bad for non -joinder of the other directors of the company; and lastly, on merits inasmuch as the requirements could not be conformed to in any event because of the labour unrest and the bona fide expression of their difficulty while acknowledging receipt of the statutory notice by the letter dated August 7, 1970, as sent by the company (Ex. 4). Mr. Promode Ranjan Roy, Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, joined issue and submitted that the objections taken are merely technical ones and that on ultimate analysis these are not maintainable.