JITENDRANATH MITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is at the instance of the two accused-petitioners, directed against an order dated the 27th February, 1973 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate, Siliguri, and for quashing the proceeding pending before him, being c. R. Case No. 559 of 1972, under section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 for a contravention of Section 21 (1) (iv) (b)of the said Act.

(2.) THE facts leading on to the Rule need not be set down in details. A petition of complaint was filed on the 28th December, 1972, by P. R. Mukhopadhya, Inspector of Factories, jalpaiguri, in the court of the learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, against two accused persons viz. Jitendra Nath Mitra and Rabindra Nath mitra, the occupier and the manager respectively of the Sannyasithan Tea estate, P. S. Bagdogra, under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for a contravention of Section 21 (1) (iv) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948. The learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by his order of the same date issued summons against the accused persons, who duly appeared and were granted bail. The prayer made on behalf of the accused No. 1 Jitendra Nath Mitra, for personal exemption was fixed for order on 27. 2. 1973 when the learned magistrate allowed the said accused exemption for the day and further allowed him to be represented day to day under section 840a of the Code of Criminal procedure. This order as well as the proceedings pending were impugned and from the subject matter of the present Rule. An ad interim stay was granted by the High Court while issuing the Rule.

(3.) TWO points of law were raised in support of the Rule by Mr. Nalin chandra Banerjee, Advocate (with Mr. Devesh Chandra Mukherjee, Advocate ). The first one appears to be one of first impression and relates to the interpretation of the first paragraph of section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure, as amended by the Amending act 26 of 1955, substituting the words "and the witnesses present, if any" for the words used in the old section, and as qualified by clause (aa) of me proviso thereof. Mr. Banerjee referred to same cases in support of his submission and the same would be considered in their proper context. The second contention relates to merits viz. that the petition of complaint does not disclose any offence under section 21 (1) (iv) (b)of the Factories Act, 1948, punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. An ancillary submission was also made by mr. Banerjee, viz. that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional judicial magistrate, Siliguri on 28. 12. 72, issuing summons against the accused persons, is bad and improper inasmuch as it does not specify the offences where under the same was issued; and that the restricted order of exemption, as passed on the 27th February, 1973 has operated to prejudice of the accused-petitioner No. 1, Jitendra Nath Mitra.