- (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also the counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
(2.) The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, dismissing the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner vide Cr. Revision No. 321 of 2009 against the impugned order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.L.A. Case No. 169 of 2007 whereby, the petitioner's prayer to allow him to plead guilt under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was rejected.
(3.) Relevant facts for disposal of this case, are as follows: Complainant / Opposite party No. 2 being a Inspector under Sub-Section (i) of Section 28 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, inspected the works site of M/s Sainik Mining and Allied Services Limited on 5.2.2007 and he found certain irregularities amounting to violation / breach of certain sections / Rules of the Act. Inspection report along with show-cause notice was thereafter sent to the accused persons namely, Capt. Rudrasen Sindhu, Managing Director and Capt. Kuldip Singh Solanki, Director of the company by registered post on the ground that they represent the company in their official capacity. Later, the opposite party No. 2 tiled prosecution report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against M/s Sainik Mining and Allied Services represented by Capt. Rudrasen Sindhu, M.D. and Capt. Kuldip Singh Solanki, Director of the Company for their prosecution for the offences under Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. On receipt of the prosecution report/ complaint, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused persons to appear and face trial. In response to the summons, the accused persons, by special power of attorney, authorized the petitioner Suresh Chandra Rai to appear before the trial court on behalf of the Company and the Managing Director and Director of the Company, to plead guilt of the offences under Sections 23 and 34 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as per the provisions laid down under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned court below refused to accept the petitioner Suresh Chandra Rai as a representative of the accused company and rejected the petitioner's prayer to allow him to represent the accused persons. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge, who by the impugned order, dismissed the revision application.;