SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.6.1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Makrana in Criminal Original Case No. 64/1985 by which he on the application filed by the accused-respondent on 7.6.1986, discharged the accused-respondent for the offence for violating the various Rules of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1956') punishable u/R. 22 of the Rules of 1956 by invoking the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : On 19.3.1985, the appellant No. 1-Labour Enforcement Officer, Ajmer filed a complaint against the accused-respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Makrana stating inter alia that the accused-respondent was owner of a Marble Mine situated in village Paharkuan and employed labours for mining work. The Mine premises of the accused-respondent were inspected by the Labour Enforcement Officer on 24.9.1984 and during inspection, it was found that the accused-respondent was not maintaining Labour Register, Register with regard to deductions and Register of the employees and there was no Notice Board displaying on which date the payment was made to the employees and other' mandatory requirements like rates and wages and allowances were also not displayed. The accused-respondent was served with a notice and on 7.6.1986, he filed an application in the lower Court in which he took some preliminary objections that the complaint cannot proceed against him as the complaint under the Rules of 1956 can proceed only against those mines owners who fall within the definition of Mine Owners under Section 3 of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1952"). It was further submitted by the accused-respondent that his mine was not covered by the definition as provided under section 3 of the Act of 1952 because he did not employ the requisite number of labours as provided under the Act of 1952. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order dated 20.6.1986 and came to the conclusion that since no offence was committed by the accused-respondent, therefore, by invoking the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C., he discharged the accused-respondent, for the offence for violating various Rules of the Rules of 1956 punishable u/R. 22 of the Rules of 1956. Aggrieved from the said order dated 20.6.1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Makrana, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
(3.) In this appeal, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by which he discharged the accused-respondent by invoking the provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. is wholly erroneous one as in a summon case where a complaint is filed, provisions of Section 258 Cr.P.C. are not applicable and for that he has placed reliance on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 495. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the. impugned order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Makrana be set aside and the case be remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Makrana for proceeding with the trial.;