M A SIDDIQUI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bijay Kumar Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. The petitioner, who was at the relevant time General Manager, B.S.N.L., Gaya Telcom District, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.O. Case No. 250 of 2007 (Tr. No. 54 of 2007). The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 23 and 24 of the Central Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Since in the present case, petitioner has questioned the order of cognizance on the ground that order of cognizance was passed after three months i.e. the period fixed for filing complaint, the court is of the opinion that there is no need to deal with detail of the fact of the case. It was asserted in the complaint petition that on 24.8.2007, the opposite party no. 2 conducted an inspection and found several irregularities attracting penal provisions under the Act. Though inspection was conducted on 24.8.2007, it was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Complaint was filed on 27.11.2007 i.e. after three months from the date of inspection/knowledge of the said offence. The petitioner has further taken a ground that being General Manager of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., the petitioner was not liable to be prosecuted for alleged offences. While taking the plea for quashing of the order of cognizance on the ground of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 27 of the Act, which prohibits a Magistrate in taking cognizance of offence, if the complaint is filed after three months from the date of alleged occurrence. In support of his stand, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an un-re-ported order passed by this Court on 20.6.2011 in Cr. Misc. No. 25063 of 2008. The petitioner has brought on record a copy of the said order as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has also brought on record subsequent order i.e. order dated 28.9.2011 passed in the said case, whereby in respect of certain dates, order was modified to that extent.

(2.) Accordingly, it has been argued that in view of the facts and circumstances, the order of cognizance in the present case may also be quashed.

(3.) Shri Bijay Kumar Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He has referred to averment made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2. He submits that complaint was filed within three months and the date of filing of the complaint has been mentioned as 22.11.2011 and accordingly, it has been argued that petitioner may not get any benefit from the order passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 25063 of 2008 as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.