A.P.ARYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 21.9.2002 passed in case No. C/2 Case No. 2538 of 2002.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that O.P. No. 2 who is Labour Superintendent as Inspector, Minimum Wages Act, Jam -shedpur made inspection of the premises of the Contractor M/s. D.N. Upadhayay and sons on 11.7.2002 at about 2.30 p.m. with other officials of the Labour Department and at the time of inspection, one unskilled labourer namely Nirmal Mishra was present. In the course of Inspection, he found following irregularities :

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has no responsibility or duty to maintain register of the contractors M/s. D.N. Upadhayay and sons but he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that liability and responsibility of maintaining records/registers of various nature for various purposes is neither of this petitioner nor M/s, Telco now Tata Motors Limited and this action is arbitrary and malafide. It was also pointed out that Section 22 -B(l)(a) of the Minimum Wages Act provides that there must be sanction for prosecution by appropriate Government or an officer authorized by it in this behalf and Section 22 -B(l)(b) provides that complaint can be made by Inspector or with the sanction of an Inspector and in the instant case, there is no specific averment in this regard and it is submitted that the present proceeding as well as order taking cognizance is bad in law and fit to be quashed. It is further pointed out that there is no specific averment in the prosecution report that O.P. No. 2 found any labourer working there during or before inspection. The allegation Is vague in the sense that it simply says that maintenance of register by the employer is not satisfactory and also, there is lot of delay in filing the prosecution report.