ADITYA PURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the sides.

(2.) This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated December 12, 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the Act) and directed to issue summons to the accused persons named in the complaint petition (annexure-4). There were two accused persons namely, (1) Sudeep Kumar Ghosh, Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. at Main Road, Ranchi and (2) Sri Aditya Puri, Chairman-cum-Managing Director at Kamala Mills compound Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai. It is alleged in the complaint petition that on September 13, 2002 the office of the company at Ranchi was inspected by the officials of the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi and they detected (i) the accused persons executing work without obtaining certificate of registration from the Registering Officer cum Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in violation of Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Act, (ii) that the accused persons failed to display notices showing rates of wages, hours of work, date of payment, place of payment. Name and address of the Inspectors having jurisdiction in English and Hindi at the place of work, in violation of Rule 91(j). (iii) that the accused person failed to submit copies of notices displayable under Rule 81 (l)(i) to the Inspector in violation of Rule 81(2), (iv) that the accused person failed to maintain the Register of contractors at the place of work, in violation of Rule 74 and (v) that the accused persons failed to submit notice of commencement/completion in form VI-B to the Inspector, in violation of Rule 81(3). In paragraph 5 of the complaint petition the following allegations have been made that the offences detected by the complainant at the time of his inspection were incorporated in inspection report - show cause Notice No. 35(8) 2002-RNC dated September 17/18, 2002 and was served to the accused persons by registered A.D. post. On the basis of this, the cognizance was taken by the impugned order which is sought to be quashed.

(3.) It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused No. 1, Branch Manager who was the in-charge of Ranchi Branch Office, has not challenged cognizance and he is facing the trial and has made his appearance whereas this petitioner Aditya Puri has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the premises of the company was inspected at Ranchi whereas this petitioner holds his office at Mumbai and, therefore, he has got no direct nexus with the alleged crime and consequently the cognizance could not have been taken against him. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Patna High Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. v. State of Bihar reported in 1987-II-LLJ-333, where a learned single Judge held that the prosecution of the proprietor of a proprietary firm or the manager of a colliery, under Section 23 cannot be sustained in absence of a statement as required by Section 25 that he had been in charge of and responsible to the business at the time of commission of such offence. Section 25 would be a bar to the prosecution. Another decision referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi reported in AIR 1983 SC 67 : 1983 (1) SCC 1 wherein Apex Court held that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised for quashing the criminal proceeding against an accused in the initial stages only if on the fact of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegation and the complaint as they are without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482. Another decision that was referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is S.K.Ahuja v. State of Bihar l988 (36) BLJR 461, which was a direct decision on this point of the Patna High Court. In that case a complaint was filed under Sections 23/24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act, 1970 and cognizance was taken. In the case there were 8 petitioners and except petitioner No. 1 S.K. Ahujn all were residents of Kanpur which is at distant place from the place of firm whereas petitioner No. 1 being the active partner, was managing the day to day affairs of the aforesaid firm and if any violation alleged to have been committed in the firm petitioner No. 1 was alone liable to be proceeded against for the alleged violation and in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 the proceeding was quashed.