Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 513 (KAR)

M. JAGANNATHAN v. LABOUR OFFICER, BANGALORE

2000-07-24

S.R.VENKATESHA MURTHY

body2000
S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners herein for offences under Karnataka industrial establishments (national and festival holidays) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the 'act'), alleging that when the respondent visited the establishment of the petitioners on 16-7-1996 at about 1. 00 p. m. , the list of holidays declared under Section 3 of the act for the year 1996 had not been displayed; that muster roll in form No. 6 had not been produced for inspection. The petitioners were thus guilty of offences under Section 9 of the act and Rule 13 of the rules. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged the issuance of summons on the ground that the petitioners did not come within the definition of employer under Section 2 (3) of the Act, that the order dated 2-12-1996 is without jurisdiction for non-application of mind so far as it related to a mandatory provision under Section 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'code' for short) and that the entire proceedings be quashed. ( 3 ) IT is unnecessary to examine as to whether the petitioners came within the definition of an employer under Section 2 (3) of the act and no finding is therefore recorded on this plea. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the offences involved in this case are punishable with a maximum fine of Rs. 50 under Rule 13 of the rules for infractions mentioned therein. The substantial contention that has been raised pertains to issuance of summons by the learned magistrate in contravention of Section 206 of the code. Section 206 of the code reads as follows: "section 206. Special summons in cases of petty offence. 50 under Rule 13 of the rules for infractions mentioned therein. The substantial contention that has been raised pertains to issuance of summons by the learned magistrate in contravention of Section 206 of the code. Section 206 of the code reads as follows: "section 206. Special summons in cases of petty offence. (1) if, in the opinion of a magistrate taking cognizance of a petty offence, the case may be summarily disposed of under Section 260, the magistrate shall, except where he is, for reasons to be recorded in writing of a contrary opinion, issue summons to the accused requiring him either to appear in person or by pleader before the magistrate on a specified date, or if he desires to plead guilty to the charge without appearing before the magistrate, to transmit before the specified date, by post or by messenger to the magistrate, the said plea in writing and the amount of fine specified in the summons or if he desires to appear by pleader and to plead guilty to the charge through such pleader to authorise, in writing, the pleader to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine through such pleader: provided that the amount of the fine specified in such summons shall not exceed one hundred rupees. (2) for the purpose of this Section, "petty offence" means any offence punishable only with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, but does not include any offence so punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), or under any other law which provides for convicting the accused person in his absence on a plea of guilty. (3) the state government 'may, by notification, specially empower any magistrate to exercise the powers conferred by sub-section (1) in relation to any offence which is compoundable under Section 320 or any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term' not exceeding three months, or with fine, or with both where the magistrate, is of opinion that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of fine only would meet the ends of justice. Sub-section (2) of Section 206 defines petty offence for purposes of this Section and a petty offence means an offence punishable only with fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000/ -. Sub-section (2) of Section 206 defines petty offence for purposes of this Section and a petty offence means an offence punishable only with fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000/ -. The offences under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 are excluded from the purview of Section 206 of the code by reason of a specific provision under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So Section 206 of the code governs all petty offences under any other law unless excepted otherwise. Sub-section (31 of Section 206 empowers the government to issue a notification empowering the magistrates to exercise powers conferred under sub-section (1) in relation to any offence which is compoundable under Section 320 of the code or any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or with fine or with both where the magistrate is of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice. Obviously sub-section (3) of Section 206 of the code enables identification of offences other than those that are not compoundable where punishment between imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or with fine or both which could be dealt with by issuing summons under sub-section (1) of Section 206 of the code. This power conferred on the government is intended to provide an opportunity to the persons accused of such offences under 'sub-section (3) of Section 206 of the code to pay a fine and walk away, instead of being compelled to go through the summary procedure under Section 260 of the code. This is apparently a provision intended for the benefit of the accused and should forthwith brought into effect to relieve not only the misery of the litigants and the courts who are otherwise compelled to go through the trial process which could otherwise be avoided by resorting to sub-section (3) of Section 206 of the code. ( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 206 of the code empowers the chief judicial magistrates and metropolitan magistrates to deal with the category of offences enumerated under sub-section (1) obviously with a view to disposing of the cases thereunder speedily. ( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 206 of the code empowers the chief judicial magistrates and metropolitan magistrates to deal with the category of offences enumerated under sub-section (1) obviously with a view to disposing of the cases thereunder speedily. Such Provisions as are intended to benefit the accused persons by a speedy trial would have to be always resorted to by the magistracy to alleviate the hardship caused to the litigant public on account of overburdened work of the courts. Section 206 is one such provision as is intended for benefit of accused person whenever he intends to plead guilty of petty offences to provide him an opportunity to do so by issuing summons as contemplated under Section 206 (1) of the code. That is the reason why when a magistrate takes cognizance for a petty offence which could be summarily disposed of under Section 260 of the code to issue summons requiring the accused either to appear in person or by pleader on a specified date or if he decides to plead guilty to the charge without appearing before the court to transmit before the specified date by post or by a messenger his plea in writing and the amount of fine specified in the summons or if he desires to appear by a pleader and to plead guilty of the charge through such pleader, to authorise in writing to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine through such pleader. The magistrate while issuing summons in this form, would have to specify the fine which shall not exceed Rs. 100/ -. However, it would be open to the magistrate not to resort to the provision under Section 206 of the code. In that event, he would have to record in writing the reasons why it is not expedient to resort to issuance of summons under Section 206 (1) of the code. ( 6 ) SECTION 206 (1) of the code is substantially similar to Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the interpretation of the said provision is found in a number of judgments: sadananda shetty v state of karnataka; court on its own motion v state (Delhi administration) and others; nilamani singh tanu singh v state; and kamalshankar and another v state of madhya pradesh. All these decisions though under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, are relevant in interpreting and understanding the scope of Section 206 of the code. The common line of reasoning that runs through all these decisions is that a beneficial provision like Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall have to be resorted to in the circumstances that come within the ambit of Section 130 of the code so that the facility of pleading guilty without personal appearance is not denied to an accused. Failure to afford this opportunity to an accused person vitiates the proceedings. I am in full agreement with the reasoning in the judgments referred to above. ( 7 ) IT is clear that when the magistrate takes cognizance, the magistrate would have to apply his mind as to what is the fine that is impos- able for the offences for which the cognizance is taken and thereafter the magistrate is obliged to give reasons as to why he would not be proceed- ing to try the case summarily and if there is no reason not to proceed under Section 206 (1) of the code, the magistrate is obliged to issue summons as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 206 of the code. Indeed where offences are punishable with fine only or where a notification under Section 206 (3) of the code has been issued by the state government, the magistrate shall have to pass on the benefit of pleading guilty by paying fine and for that purpose, the summons in form No. 13 of the second schedule to the code shall have to be issued. In the instant case, the order of the magistrate would show that he has not applied his mind at all as to whether summons under Section 206 (1) of the code should be issued at all or not and has mechanically issued summons to the accused to appear before the court. The failure of the magistrate to take a decision as to why Section 206 (1) of the code could not be made available to the accused by a reasoned Order, has vitiated the issuance of the summons and the issuance of summons to the ac- cused should be set aside. Having regard to the fact that the punishment for the offence alleged cannot exceed Rs. Having regard to the fact that the punishment for the offence alleged cannot exceed Rs. 50/-, I am of the opinion that setting aside and remitting the matter to the trial court, would be a more costly exercise than quashing the proceedings here itself by exer- cise of power under Section 482 of the code. Having regard to the cir- cumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the entire proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the code to give quietus to a very trivial offence. ( 8 ) IN terms stated above, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in c. c. No. 846 of 1996 on the file of the judicial magistrate of the first class, doddaballapur is quashed. --- *** --- .