RAMESH CHANDRA LATH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 23-7-1991 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh (in short the 'SDJM'), is subject-matter of challenge in these two applications.

(2.) The orderconsists of two parts. By a petition, petitioner challenged cognizance taken, for alleged commission of offences under Sections 24 and 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the 'Act'). The petitioner's stand is that cognizance was taken beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reference was made to Section 27 of the Act. Time prescribed for taking cognizance of alleged offences is three months. Prayer was rejected by learned SDJM, on the ground that the proviso to Section 27 applies to the facts of the case. According to him, there was service of notice on, the accused-petitioner whereby certain defects pointed out were directed to be rectified. He construed it to be a written order and held that offence related to non-compliance of a written order, and therefore, period oflimitation is six months. By the latter part of his order, he rejected the prayer to dispense with personal attendance of petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner, has assailed both parts of the order. So far as question of limitation is concerned, it is submitted that proviso to Section 27 appliesonly where offence related to disobediency of a written order. According to him, even if it is accepted that there was a notice, the same should not be considered to be a written, order, the disobedience of which would make proviso to Section 27 applicable. The notice, it was urged, only contained requests for rectification of alleged defects.