Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 240 (PAT)

Madhav Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar

1985-08-23

N.AHMAD

body1985
JUDGMENT : Nazir Ahmad, J.- This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner under section 32 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is pending trial as per trial no. 1908 arising out of C. B. Case no.736 of 1980 in the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, who has taken cognizance in the case on 28.8.1980. 2. The complaint petition describes the petitioner as Neojak (employer). It has been asserted in the complaint petition, (Annexure-1) that on 6.4.1980 at about 11.20. A. M. the complainant, who is the Labour Superintendent cum-Inspecting officer, inspected the shop premises of the petitioner which shop is meant for sale of ready-made garments and he found that the petitioner was present. The allegation in the complaint petition is that he asked the petitioner to disclose the name of the employer but the petitioner refused to dis. close the name and address of the employer. The complainant, subsequently, sent a registered notice to show cause on 1.5.1980 and the petitioner was required to show cause by 3.5.1980. The petitioner filed show cause on 21.5.1980 and wanted to know as to what was the obstruction made by the petitioner and then a clarification was sent to the petitioner by registered letter dated 13.6.1980. 3. Thus, from the complaint petition it appears that when the complainant went to the shop premises of the petitioner he wanted to know the name and address of the employer of the shop and it is said that he refused to disclose the name and address of the employer. 4. Mr. Naseem Ahmad, on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the inspecting officer could take action in the manner as provided in section 30 of the Act. Section 32 lays down that if any person who voluntarily obstructs an Inspecting Officer in the exercise of any power conferred on him under this Act or who fails. without sufficient cause to comply with any lawful direction made by the Inspecting Officer shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees or with both. 5. without sufficient cause to comply with any lawful direction made by the Inspecting Officer shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two hundred fifty rupees or with both. 5. In the complaint petition in paragraph 1 it has been clearly mentioned that there was obstructoin by the petitioner in the discharge of duties by the complainant in terms of section 32 of the Act. Now the question is that complainant has himself described in the complainant petition that the pertitioner is Neojak of employer. This clearly shows that the complainant must be aware from the very beginning that the petitioner is the employer. As regards the question whether non-disclosure of the name and address of the employer amounts to obstruction in the discharge of duties of the complainant, the complainant has not pointed out any other non-compliance by the petitioner under any of the provisions of the Act. It is not evident as to for what purpose the name of the employer was necessary when no defect in the book of accounts were found by the complainant. Even if it is held that the complainant failed to disclose the name and address of the employer it will not amount to an obstruction. 6. Mr. Naseem Ahmad has relied on the case of Phudki v. State ( AIR 1955 All 104 ) where it has been observed in paragraph 7 the word 'obstruction' connotes some overt act in the nature of violence or show of violence and that it cannot be said that a man obstructed another if that man runs away from the other. In the present case no violence on show of violence was involved. The complainant asked the petitioner to disclose the name of the employer and he failed to disclose the name and address. This can only be non-cooperation with the complainant but it cannot be a case of an act of violence or show of violence. Hence, it is held that in the present case no case of obstruction by the complainant against the petitioner has been made out. And, so the prosecution of the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The entire prosecution against the petitioner by Annexure-1 and the ORDER :of cognizance under section 32 of the Act dated 28.8.1980 is also, accordingly, quashed. 7. And, so the prosecution of the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The entire prosecution against the petitioner by Annexure-1 and the ORDER :of cognizance under section 32 of the Act dated 28.8.1980 is also, accordingly, quashed. 7. In the result, the application is allowed.