RAMA KANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire prosecution including the order dated October 23, 1990 in G.O. case No. 67 of 1990 T.R. No, 1057 of 1993, pending in the Court of Sri B.K. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Nawada who by his order dated October 23, 1990 took cognizance of the offences under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 against the petitioners.

(2.) As it appears from the petition, while petitioner No. 1, Rama Kant Singh was Additional Director, Mines at Ranchi he was appointed Managing Director of the Biliar State Mineral Development Corporation at Ranchi, an undertaking of the Govt. of Bihar. a notification dated June 3, 1989 (annexure 1) issued by the Govt. of Bihar in the Mines and Geology Department. While petitioner No.2 Jaiyant Kumar Chaudhary was District Mining Officer at Rohtas he was deputed to the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation as per notification dated January 16, 1990 (annexure - 3) issued by the Govt. of Bihar in Mines and Geology Department. It further appears from the petition that the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation has its head office at Ranchi where the Managing Director (petitioner No. 1) was holding his office. Petitioner No.2 had his office at Jhumri Talaiya where he was discharging his duties as Project Manager. Opposite party No. 2 who was the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) filed a complaint petition dated October 22, 1990 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada against the petitioners for their prosecution under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rule, 1956 on the ground that they have failed to maintain the register in Form 'B' properly as photographs 'were not affixed under serial Nos. 97 and 98 as per Rule 54 and the compliance report submitted by the employer was not considered satisfactory. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Rule 22 of the said rules and transferred the case to Magistrate for trial with a direction to issue summons to the accused-petitioners.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No. 1 being Additional Director, Mines at the time of his posting as Managing Director of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation as per notification (annexure -1) of the Government of Bihar was a public servant and similarly petitioner No. 2 being District Mining Officer, Rohtas, at the time of his deputation to the said Corporation under the notification (annexure -3) issued by Government of Bihar was also a public servant and, that being so, sanction for their prosecution for the said offence was necessary in accordance with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further contended that Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation is a company of the Govt. of Bihar registered under the Companies Act and is an undertaking of the Govt. of Bihar and, that being so, the petitioner No. 1 being Managing Director and petitioner No. 2 being Project Manager are public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the relevant time were employed in connection with the affairs of the State Government. The above contentions were not controverted by the learned counsel for the State (opposite Party No. 1).