MADHAV PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner under Sec. 32 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is pending trial as per trial no. 1908 arising out of C.B. Case no. 736 of 1980 in the Court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, who has taken cognizance in the case on 28.8.1980. The complaint petition describes the petitioner as Neojak (employer). It has been asserted in the complaint petition, (Annexure -1) that on 6.4.1980 at about 11.20 A.M. the complainant, who is the Labour Superintendent cum -Inspecting officer, inspected the shop premises of the petitioner which shop is meant for sale of ready -made garments and he found that the petitioner was present. The allegation in the complaint petition is that he asked the petitioner to disclose the name of the employer but the petitioner refused to disclose the name and address of the employer. The complainant, subsequently, sent a registered notice to show cause on 1.5.1980 and the petitioner was required to show cause by 3.5.1980. The petitioner filed show cause on 21.5.1980 and wanted to know as to what was the obstruction made by the petitioner and then a clarification was sent to the petitioner by registered letter dated 13.6.1980.

(2.) Thus, from the complaint petition it appears that when the complainant went to the shop premises of the petitioner he wanted to know the name and address of the employer of the shop and it is said that he refused to disclose the name and address of the employer.

(3.) Mr. Naseem Ahmad, on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the inspecting officer could take action in the manner as provided in Sec. 30 of the Act. Sec. 32 lays down that if any person who voluntarily obstructs an Inspecting Officer in the exercise of any power conferred on him under this Act or who fails, without sufficient cause to comply with any lawful direction made by the Inspecting Officer shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees or with both.