- (1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dt. 3-12-87 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 15/86 under Section 341, Cr. P.C. whereby while dismissing the appeal, the order dt. 15-11-1984 passed by learned Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur was confirmed. The learned Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur dismissed an application under Section 340, Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner praying for an inquiry under Section 340, Cr. P.C. for filing a complaint under Sections 209 and 210, I.P.C. against the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10.
(2.) The facts may be summarized as under :- Non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 were in the employment of the petitioner in the factory at Pratapgarh. According to the petitioner, non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 abruptly left the job, with the result, the factory had to stop working for about 6 and a half years. Notwithstanding this, non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur in the year 1983 claiming wages for holidays and paid holidays ranging over a period between 4 to 10 years and notice period. Non-petitioners gave their statements on oath to have worked in the petitioner's factory in the above 4 to 10 years. This application was false and non-petitioners knew it to be false and they filed the claim dishonestly and fraudulently. The claim of the non-petitioners was passed in their favour for an amount of Rs. 36,275/- along with compensation at the rate of 25 rupee per claim. In this way, the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 obtained a decree or order against the petitioner for a sum not due or in any case a larger claim then due fraudulently and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 209 and 210, I.P.C. Since the offences u/Ss. 209, 210 and 193, I.P.C. fell within the bar of Section 195, I.P.C., no cognizance could be taken except on a complaint in writing to the Court in relation to whose proceedings the offences were committed or by the Court to which that Court was subordinate. Therefore, an application under Section 340, Cr. P.C. was filed by the petitioner before the learned Authority, Payment of Wages Act, Udaipur to hold an preliminary inquiry, as it may think necessary and to record a finding about the commission of above referred offences and to make a complaint in writing to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and for all necessary action. The non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 did not give any specific reply to the petitioner's application dt. 16-8-84. The petitioner's application was rejected by an order dt. 15-11-84 and the appeal was also dismissed on 3-12-87 as stated above.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that grounds on which the application has been dismissed are erroneous. The petitioner did not file appeal against the original decree which could have been filed but scope of the appeal would have been only the reliability of the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 claimants' evidence and the petitioner could pray that the claim could not be decreed. If the petitioner did not appear in the original proceedings to contest the claim, it does not lead to the inference that the claim passed in favour of the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 was justified. If the petitioner would have contested the claim, the claim would not have been passed in favour of the non-petitioners and in that event the offence under Section 210 would not have been made out. It is further argued that offence under Section 210 is made out only after obtaining the decree by the claimants. Therefore, the petitioner's application was wrongly dismissed because the learned lower Courts were labouring under the obsession that the petitioner was seeking to challenge the correctness of the decree through his application. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the decree. Merely on this ground it cannot be held that the proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P.C. cannot be entertained. When the decree obtained by the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 10 became final on account of no appeal by the petitioner even then the proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P.C. are maintainable to see that whether the non-petitioners have committed an offence under Section 210, I.P.C. or not. Therefore, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's application was directed not against the decree but against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 10 for lodging false claim, giving the false evidence to support the claim. The petitioner shall establish against the non-petitioner No. 2 to 10 that the claim was filed dishonestly and it was false and the claimants gave false evidence and obtained a decree for a sum not due. Therefore, the mere existence of the decree is no ground to hold that there is no need of an inquiry into the fraudulently and dishonestly obtaining the decree by the claimants. The petitioner pleaded all necessary facts constituting the above offences in his application, affidavit was also filed which stood uncontroverted by the non-petitioners No. 2 to 10. Therefore, the learned courts below have erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner.;