ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 30.1.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Case No.342(M) of 2002. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that on 31.5.2001 an inspection was made by the Labour Superintendent, Minimum Wages Act, Patna in the premises of M/s Parvati Steel Center, Kankerbagh, Patna. During inspection several irregularities were found showing violation of the provisions of the Act and, thereafter a complaint was filed by the Labour Superintendent and Inspector, Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Patna on 30.1.2002 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna which was numbered as Case No. 342 (M ) of 2002. On 30.1.2002 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Section 22A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition. While challenging the order of cognizance, Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the order of cognizance is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Section 22B (2)(b) of the Act. It was submitted that since in the present case order of cognizance was passed under section 22A of the Act, the complaint was to be filed within a period of six months from the date of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners specifically referred to annexure-1 to the petition and submitted that it is a case of the complainant that inspection was done on 31.5.2001. Meaning thereby that on 31.5.2001 commission of offence under the Act was noticed by the complainant. However, the fact remains that in the present case the complaint was filed on 30.1.2002 which is evident from the order of cognizance itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the provisions contained in Section 22B (2) of the Act which is as follows: Section 22B(2):- No Court shall take cognizance of the offence (a) . . . . . . . (b) Under Section 22A, unless complaint Patna High Court The 1st September,2010 Md.S./NAFR thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 4. By way of referring the aforesaid provision and the fact disclosed in the complaint case as well as the date of filing, which was noticed in the order of cognizance it has been submitted that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the same was taken beyond the statutory period of the filing of the complaint petition. 5. Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. However, she is not in a position to dispute the statutory provisions. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the complaint petition as well as the impugned order of cognizance. From the record it is evident that the complaint was filed after expiry of statutory period of six months as prescribed under Section 22B (2)(b) of the Act and, as such, there is no option before this court save and except to set aside the order of cognizance dated 30.1.2002. 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 30.1.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.342(M) of 2002 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.