R K GARACH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An. Inspector, Shops and Establishments, appointed under section 19 (1) of the West Bengal Shops and Establishments Act, 1983 had started three prosecutions under section 21 (1) of the said Act against the petitioners who are partners of a commercial establishment under the name and style of Kantilal T. Garach for violation of certain provision of the Act such as not displaying the registration certificate, attending customers beyond scheduled hour of closing the shop, not producing the prescribed register, record as to issuance of Forms X and visit book on demand etc. The cognizance of alleged office in one of the cases was taken by the learned Magistrate on the 28th December. 1979 and in two other cases on the 2nd January, 1980. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners in these revisional applications that complaint did not disclose that the petitioners were the employers within the meaning of section 24 of the said Act and as such responsible for displaying the certificate of registration maintaining the prescribed register etc under the provisions of sections 16 and 17 of the Act. There is a good deal of substance in this contention and it cannot be said that the complaints upon which cognizance hue been taken disclosed any offence at all as none of the: petitioners answer the description of employer as stated in section 24 of the Act. They might be regarded as employers if it was stated that they were in charge of the establishment in question in which case they would be regarded as employers as defined in section 24. As the complaints make no such disclosure it cannot be assumed that the present petitioners were in charge of the establishment as it is quite possible that a person may be a partner of a firm but still not in charge of the establishment. Therefore, the complaint does not disclose any offence of which cognizance could be taken by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The records of the court below also disclose a deplorable state of affairs. It appears that a rubber stamp was impressed on the complaints reading that cognizance were taken and processes were being issued but unfortunately the same did not bear any signature of the learned Magistrate, Therefore there is no manner of doubt that the learned Magistrate had no occasion to apply his mind at all to the complaints filed against the present petitioners and on this ground alone, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In Criminal Revision No. 1537 of 1178, which was also a case under the same Act., a Division Bench of this Court had deprecated the practice of a Magistrate signing on a rubber stamp order and it was observed by their Lordships that this practice should be discontinued although in that case the learned Magistrate had at least put his signature on the rubber stamp in question,

(3.) For reasons stated above it is held that no cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and indeed the same could not be taken as the complaints did not disclose any offence committed by the present petitioners The rules are therefore, made absolute and the proceeding in question are quashed.