KRISHNA KANT SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 21st July, 2003, passed by Sri Sanjeev Jha, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Ranchi, in Case NOC-III268 of 2002, which was registered for the offences under Sections 22 and 22 (A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. By the aforesaid order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, rejected the application, preferred by the petitioners under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") to dispense with their personal appearance and to allow them to be represented through their lawyer during trial.

(2.) It appears that a case has been filed by opposite party No. 2, Labour Superintendent, Ranchi, against one M/s. Advance Diagnostic Central, Bariyatu, and these two petitioners as Its Director and Manager. It has been alleged that on 22nd June, 2002 at about 12.10 p.m. an inspection of the establishment of M/s. Diagnostic Center, Bariyatu, was made and during course of such Inspection, it was found that the required statutory forms and documents have not been maintained. On demand, the employee of M/s. Advance Diagnostic Centre, Bariyatu, could not produce the records for Inspection, in violation of the statutory Rules, constituting offences punishable under Sections 22 and 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

(3.) The complainant filed the complaint petition after taking sanction from the competent authority. It was prayed that since the complainant is a public servant, his day to day personal appearance in the Court be dispensed with. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the prosecution report dated 20th Nov. 2002 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 22 and 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, transferred the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate for trial and ordered to issue summons against the accused. The petitioners having come to know about the same, filed an application under Section 205, Cr.P.C. to dispense with their personal appearance. Petitioner No. 1 took plea that he is a busy doctor whereas petitioner No. 2 took plea that he is busy businessman and remains outside most of the time and thereby it is difficult for him to attend the Court on day to day trial. It is also pleaded that if personal appearance is not dispensed with, it will not only cause great inconvenience, harassment as well as prejudice to petitioner No. 1 but it will also cause harassment to the patients, who every day come from outside for treatment. The petitioners undertook to appear physically, if required by the learned Court below, as and when found necessary.