Judgment 1. The petitioner, Byomkesh Pathak has filed this writ petition for quashing the criminal prosecution and the entire criminal proceedings in PW Case No. 8/82, now pending in the Court of Sri S. B. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad and the order dated 5th September, 1994, passed in the said case, whereby permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against him. 2. The facts of the case are that on 4-2-1982, a complain petition was filed by respondent No. 2 in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghmara at Dhanbad alleging violation of Rules 8 and 19 of Payment of Wages Rules, 1956, against the petitioner and others on account of the discrepancies found in the inspection made on 10-9-1981. 3. By an order dated 4-2-1982, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghmara at Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956. On receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared on 25-7-1983 and he was granted bail. According to him, he all along took steps since 25-7-1983 in the case. The same was transferred from one court to another, but there was no progress in the case. The case was adjourned from 1982 to 5-5-1989 for appearance of the remaining accused persons although the petitioner took steps on each and every date. On 5th May, 1989, the case was fixed for evidence, but the prosecution failed to produce any witness till 16-9-1992, On that date the case records were transferred to the court of the learned C. J. M, Dhanbad. But since the petitioner was not knowing this fact, he could not take any step in the transferee court. Accordingly, by an order dated 16-4-1994, the learned Magissrate ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest which was issued on 25-4-1994. 4. Thereafter without awaiting for service/execution of the report, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 5th September, 1994, declaring the petitioner to be absconder and accordingly directed issuance of permanent warrant of arrest. 5. Accordingly, by an order dated 16-4-1994, the learned Magissrate ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest which was issued on 25-4-1994. 4. Thereafter without awaiting for service/execution of the report, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 5th September, 1994, declaring the petitioner to be absconder and accordingly directed issuance of permanent warrant of arrest. 5. The petitioner has challenged the entire proceeding on the ground inter alia, that the order taking cognizance barred by limitation and is bad in law, the prosecution case does not make out any case against him, the prosecution continued for a period of more than 7 years for explaining the substance of acquisition and thereafter for three years for production of witnesses and the case was transferred to different courts. In that way, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by attening the case for a period of nine years continuously. 6. It has also been submitted that the initiation of the proceeding on the basis of the prosecution report without proper sanction is vitiated in law. It has been further submitted that continuance of the proceeding under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages Rules, 1956, for a period of twelve years is bad, illegal and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Advance notice of the petition was served on the State counsel, but the record reveais that no counter affidavit has been filed. Therefore, the facts mentioned by the petitioner have to be taken as correct 8. Without going into the merit/legality of the proceeding, suffice it to say that the case been hanging fire since 1982, i. e. for 12 years, According to the petitioner he had been appeari ng all along and taking steps in the proceedings, even after it was transferred from one court to another. His only fault was that as he was not aware of the transfer of the case to the Court of the C. J. M., Dhanbad, therefore, due to inadvertance he remained absent. It was incumbent upon the learned court to make proper enquiry before declaring him absconder, which appears to have not been done. More oder, if the other accused persons were not appearing in the case since, 1982, it was not the fault of the petitioner. In our opinion, continuance of this proceeding has proved to be futile and therd has been violation of justice. More oder, if the other accused persons were not appearing in the case since, 1982, it was not the fault of the petitioner. In our opinion, continuance of this proceeding has proved to be futile and therd has been violation of justice. No useful purpose will be served by allowing the proceeding to continue any longer. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is allowed and the proceeding pending against the petitioner, being PW Case No. 8/82 (T. R. No. 1017/87), along with the order dated 5th September, 1994, directing for issuance of permanent warrant of arrest are hereby quashed.