RAJESH TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. C-III 136/2006 including the order dated 4.11.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence under section 24 of the Contract Labour (RegulationAbolition)Act, 1970.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on account of the fact that he happens to be the Director of M/s Reliance Next Link (P) Ltd. It has further been submitted that in the complaint petition, it has vaguely been stated that the petitioner being the Director of M/s Reliance Next Link ( P) Ltd is responsible for day to day affairs of the company but the same is not sufficient to prosecute the petitioner for committing an offence under section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation &Abolition)Act, 1970 as it was necessary for the complainant to spell out as to in what manner the petitioner was responsible for the day to day affairs of the complainant. It has also been submitted that Sec. 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation &Abolition)Act, 1970 is pari materia with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and with respect to absence of any specific role played by the petitioner in day to day affairs of the company, reference has been made to the case of National Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Harmeet Singh PaintalAnother, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330.