STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, the bunch of Criminal Revision Nos. 368 of 1994, 369 of 1994, 370 of 1994, 371 of 1994, 372 of 1994, 373 of 1994, 374 of 1994, 375 of 1994, 376 of 1994 and 377 of 1994 can conveniently be disposed of together. All these petitions involve an identical and common question and facts are not different.

(2.) CERTAIN complaints had been filed under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act through the Labour Inspector, Hissar while the others were filed under the Minimum Wages Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the presence of the Labour Inspector and issued summons to the accused. In most of the cases, the summons were not received back on the date fixed or were unserved. They were directed to be issued afresh. On the date fixed in individual cases, the Labour Inspector did not appear. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate waited till 3.35 p.m. Thereupon the order was passed that none is present for the complainant and the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of State of Haryana urged that the trial court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaints under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and further contended that in any event, the order of the trial court is not justified and should be set aside.