Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1281 (PAT)

K. v. Krishnamurty VS State Of Bihar

2006-12-20

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. The erstwhile Ex-Chairman and the Zonal Manager of Bank of India have preferred this application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 28.5.04 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in P.S. Case No. 100 of 2004 whereby cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 9(1) & (2) read with Section 11 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has been taken. 2. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Opposite Party No. 3 herein filed a complaint inter alia stating that the employer had failed to submit notice in Form A regarding opening/closing of the establishment to the Controlling Authority; the Employer failed to display notice at or near the establishment in English and Hindi specifying the name of officer with designation authorized by the employer to receive on his behalf notice under the Act and Rules; Nomination form F has not been maintained in respect of all eligible employees; Employer failed to display an abstract of the Act and Rules made there under in Form U in English and the language under stood by the majority of the employee sat the conspicuous place or near main entrance of the establishment; Employer failed to pay the amount of Gratuity to employees within 30 days from the date it became payable; Employer failed to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum for delayed payment of Gratuity to employees. 3. It appears that sanction for prosecution had been obtained and after perusing the complaint and the materials on record the learned C.J.M. took cognizance by the impugned order and transferred the case to the court of J.M. 1st Class for disposal. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned he has superannuated from the service of the bank on 31.5.03 i.e. much prior to the filing of the complaint. It has also been submitted that the Labour Enforcement Officer with malafide attitude and intention had filed the present case on false averments. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations relate to the day to day routine functioning of the bank and there is no allegation against the petitioner for which they can be arrayed as accused and in this case they have been impleaded as accused only by virtus of the post that they hold. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations relate to the day to day routine functioning of the bank and there is no allegation against the petitioner for which they can be arrayed as accused and in this case they have been impleaded as accused only by virtus of the post that they hold. In this context it was sought to be submitted that the Managing Director-cum Chairman stayed at Bombay and he could in no way be made liable for the offence alleged to have been committed at Bhagalpur. Similarly so far as petitioner no. 2, the Zonal Manager is concerned he is merely required to know the bank activities throughout the Zone and supervise business development activities and carry out the directions issued either by the Reserve Bank of India and Ministry of Finance he too cannot be held responsible for the day to day work of the banks branches during the relevant period. It is further submitted that neither petitioner no. 1 nor petitioner no. 2 was incharge of the day to day working of the banks branches during the period in question and the same would be apparent from a perusal of the complaint. 6. Apparently the criminal prosecution of the two petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. 7. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed.