Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 23 (GAU)

Sudhir Kumar Roy v. State of Assam and Another

1994-02-08

S.K.HOMCHAUDHURI

body1994
Heard Mr. DS Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AR Paul Mazumdar, learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 11.3.93 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in CR Case No. 1538/92 under section 36 of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951, purporting to issue non bailable warrant against the petitioner and also attaching the movable properties of Deopani Tea Estate. For alleged non submission of return under the provisions of Plantation Labour Act, 1951 for the year 1991 -92 at the instance of the Chief Inspector of Plantations, the complaint case has been filed under section 36 of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and the case is registered as CR Case No. 15387 92 in the Court of District Magistrate, Diphu. The petitioner's case is that he is the Manager of the Deopani Tea Estate and after receipt of summon, he appeared before the learned District Magistrate and was granted bail on furnishing a PR Bord of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned District Magistrate however fixed i 1.3.93 for filing written statement of defence by the petitioner. On 11.3.93 the petitioner appeared but the Advocate for the petitioner having not appeared, petitioner could not file written statement of defence and made an application before the learned District Magistrate praying for time. It is stated on oath by the petitioner that the learned District Magistrate instead of allowing time by the order dated 11.3.93, issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and also ordered for attaching movable properties of the Deopani Tea Estate. Petitioner's further case is that the return in question in respect of the year 1991-92 had already been submitted to the Labour Department on 17th August, 1992. Be that as it may, non submission of return under the provisions of Plantations Labour Act, is not such a grave offence which warrants issuance of non-bailable warrant as well as attaching the properties of the Deoparti Tea Estate. In such cases Court should be lenient to exempt personal appearance of the accused on each date and accused should be allowed to be represented by an Advocate on the date on which appearance of the accused is not essential. In such cases Court should be lenient to exempt personal appearance of the accused on each date and accused should be allowed to be represented by an Advocate on the date on which appearance of the accused is not essential. The impugned order dated 11.3.93 purporting to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and attaching mavable properties of the Deopani Tea Estate for failure to file written statement of defence which is not essential under law, is immunable, harsh, unwarranted and has caused failure of justice. 3. The petition is therefore allowed and the impugned order dated 11.3.93 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in CR Case No. 1538/92 is set aside. Although filing of written statement of defence by the accused is not essential, however, petitioner can certainly satisfy the learned District Magistrate that in fact he had submitted return in question and if the learned District Magistrate is satisfied that the petitioner in fact submitted return in question, he may close the proceeding.