Guman Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) THESE are four criminal revision petitions against order passed in four cases under the Minimum Wages Act being Criminal Revisions 14/82, 15/82, 16/82, 17/82 by the District and Session Judge, Jaipur. All of them have been decided on identical grounds. The prosecution is for the purpose of non -maintenance and non -supplying and disposal and not making available the various record to be kept by a Company under the Minimum Wages Act.
(2.) THE allegation is that when the Inspector went to inspect the various requirement of the Minimum Wages Act, in the shape of maintenance of the record were not made available and therefore the laws were violated. In all these cases the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the company has not been made a party and therefore, no prosecution can be allowed to be continued against the Managing Director. In the complaint the allegation is that the non -petitioner is responsible and liable for the enforcement, compliance and implementation of the various provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and other Factories Laws which have the Factory. A number of non -compliance of Rules 27, 26, etc, have been mentioned in the complaint in Para No. 4 and they are 8 in number. The complaint has been quashed by the lower court where in it has been held that when the company made a part & specific allegation not made against the officers the complaint cannot be entertained Mr. Kamal Shrimal, Public Prosecutor pointed out that the Calcutta High Court in Maya Chand v. Inspector Minimum Wages Act has not laid down the correct law, and even otherwise after the amendment of 1973 in the Criminal Procedure Code it is the offence against which the cognizance is taken and not the offender, and there no prosecution can be quashed only on the ground that one or two of the offenders have not been made party.
(3.) NOW before I proceed to examine the relevant theme of the decision of the Calcutta High Court I must mention that a bare perusal of the Section 22(C) shows that in cases of company's bye statute every person who at the time of the offence was committed was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company itself is deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. This legal fiction and deeming provision introduced by the Legislature has got great bearing in the interpretation of the law in respect of the liability of the various officers of the Company. It appears that the Legislature was keen that the laws which have been in the field of Corpn. and the Industrial sector must be obeyed and officers of the company or important alike holding the post of either should not be allowed to go scot free, merely by saying that they are not responsible. This particular object was sought to be achieved by making this deeming provision in which it was said that shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, which is a sort of exception or an extra -ordinary feature in a criminal law.;