CENTRAL TASAR RESEARCH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three petitioners have been arrayed as accused along with one M.A. Rahman in Complaint Case No. C (iii) 132/88 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi. Out of aforesaid four accused persons, three of them have moved this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the entire prosecution against them on the ground of inordinate delay and also that the allegations alleged do not constitute may offence.

(2.) It appears that on 28.3.1988, the Employment Officer, Enforcement Machinery, filed a complaint against the said four accused persons alleging, inter alia, that during the course of inspection it was found that the accused persons had failed to furnish quarterly returns ending December, 1996, March, 1987 and June, 1987 and September, 1987 which was in contravention of Section 5(1) of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act 1959. It is alleged that these persons (names have been given in complaint) were appointed on 2.11.1987 without notifying any vacancy of that post to the local employment Exchange or Central Employment Exchange which is also in contravention of Sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act as well as other Rules of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Rules, 1960. Apart from this, one vacancy of librarian was filled up by the accused by appointing one C.K. Das on 30.11.1987 without notifying the vacancy to the Employment Exchange in utter violation of the Act and the Rules. Show cause notice was issued by the complainant to the accused but no satisfactory reply could be given. It is said that the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 7(2)(a)(i) of the said Act and the Rules.

(3.) There is no denial of the fact that cognizance was taken in the year, 1991, and thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for appearance of the accused persons.