- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Employment Exchange Case No. 66 of 2009, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for violation of Sections 4(2), 5(2) and 6 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as the 'Act'), condoning the delay in filing the case. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution against them in the said case. Employment Exchange Case No. 66 of 2009 was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, by the Assistant Director Incharge (Employment), Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, Dhanbad, against the petitioners, who were posted as Managing Director, Area Sales Manager and Branch Sales Manager respectively, of S.B.I. Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Hotel V.I.P. Complex, Bank More, Dhanbad, alleging that they had violated the provisions of Sections 4(2) , 5(2) and 6 of the Act, as they had not notified the vacancies to the Employment Exchange and had not submitted the returns as provided under the Act. It appears that sanction for prosecution of the petitioners was granted by the Director, Employment and Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi by office order No. 43 of 2008 dated 4.12.2008 as contained in Annexure 12 to this writ petition. From bare perusal of the sanction order, it is apparent that there is nothing in the order to show the application of independent mind by the sanctioning authority to the materials placed before him, rather, a very cryptic and non speaking order has been passed while granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioners for violations of the aforementioned sections of the Act. It further appears that the penal provision is Section 7 of the Act, which is only punishable by fine and accordingly, the period of limitation for filing the complaint case under the Act would be six months, in view of Section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the impugned order dated 24.1.2009 that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance condoning the delay without assigning any reason whatsoever, which is in violation of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which expressly prescribes that the Court taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation may take cognizance, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained, or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
(3.) IN the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below dated 24.1.2009 condoning the delay without giving any reason is absolutely illegal and bad in the eyes of law and all further proceedings against the petitioners in the said Employment Exchange Case No. 66 of 2009 are absolutely illegal and fit to be quashed. Learned counsel has also challenged the order dated 4.12.2008 passed by the sanctioning authority as contained in Annexure 12, submitting that the sanctioning authority had passed the order of sanction without any application of mind and accordingly, even the sanction order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that since the sanction order is absolutely illegal, even institution of the case for the offence under the Act is barred under Section 8 of the said Act, which expressly prohibits the institution of the prosecution without sanction. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in Employment Exchange Case No. 66 of 2009 is thus, fit to be quashed on this score as well. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order or in the institution of the criminal case against the petitioners, as they had violated the provisions of Sections 4(2), 5(2) and 6 of the said Act, as they had not notified the vacancies to the Employment Exchange, nor had submitted the returns as provided under the Act. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sanctioning authority had not applied its own independent mind while granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioners and as such, the order granting sanction as contained in Annexure 12 is absolutely vitiated and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is well settled that the sanctioning authority must apply its own independent mind to all the material facts and the order of sanction must ex facie disclose such independent application of mind. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of the Apex Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622.;