Judgment : D. K. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein have preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing of their criminal prosecution including the order impugned dated August 26, 2002 whereby and whereunder the CJM, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence under Section 22-A of minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in C/2 Case No. 2006/2002 pending in the Court of Ms Shweta Kumari, Judicial magistrate, Jamshedpur. ( 2 ) A complaint case vide C/2 Case No. 2006/2002 was filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein against the petitioners and others for the alleged violation of Sections 12 (1) and 18 of the minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules 21 (4), 22, 25 (2), 26 (1), 26 (2), 26 (5) and 26 of the minimum Wages Rules, 1950 on the backdrop that when the O. P. No. 2 on July 15, 2002 inspected M/s. Graduate Engineers Hostel, telco, Plaza Area, TELCO in M-53, jamshedpur along with other witnesses and also inspected the Bharat Special Security, the irregularities were found in contravention of the Minimum Wages Act and Rules as mentioned hereinabove. ( 3 ) A notice thereafter vide Memo No. 2341 dated July 26, 2002 was sent to the alleged employers to show-cause which was replied on July 29, 2002, but upon being dissatisfied with the contents of the causes shown and presuming that the employers were not interested in rectifying the defects, a complaint was filed in the Court of CJM for taking cognizance under Section 20-B of the m. W. Act and to punish them under Section 22-A of the said Act. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that the petitioners are the senior Officers of M/s telco Ltd. and the prosecution report (complaint) is silent as to how they are connected with the affairs of Graduate engineers Hostel and/or Bharat Special security, Jamshedpur. They are not at all concerned in relation to the person or persons, if at all working there in Graduate Engineers hostel as private domestic servants. As a matter of fact the boarders of the hostel have constituted various committees, popularly known as Mess Secretary, General Secretary etc. who used to engage caretaker to look after the overall supervision of the work of persons working for the boarders of the hostel for running mess cleanliness etc. As a matter of fact the boarders of the hostel have constituted various committees, popularly known as Mess Secretary, General Secretary etc. who used to engage caretaker to look after the overall supervision of the work of persons working for the boarders of the hostel for running mess cleanliness etc. The Committee even managed their security including caretaker to be paid by the residents of the hostel from their own funds and not from the fund of the TELCO (TATA MOTORS ). Learned counsel further submitted that no minimum rate of wages has been fixed by the government for domestic servant/employees and therefore, they do not come within the schedule employment. Similarly, liability and responsibility of maintaining the records/registers of various nature for various purpose as alleged in the prosecution report is neither of these petitioners nor of M/s TELCO but the petitioners have been implicated without any basis with arbitrary and mala fide motive. The petitioners have nothing to do with the payment of salary wages etc. to the staff/employee of Bharat Special Security and/or M/s Graduate Engineers Hostel. There was no allegation that the opposite party No. 2 found persons working in schedule employment and were engaged by the petitioners and the prosecution report was further silent that the petitioners were required to maintain registers/records which they failed to maintain. ( 5 ) ADVANCING his argument the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution report/complaint is silent as to whether the o. P. No. 2 came across and found labourers employed there or that any of the employee amongst the labourers had made any complaint to him regarding his minimum wage. The show-cause notice alleged to be sent and the causes shown thereof have not been annexed with the prosecution report and that it did not disclose as to under what manner the petitioners were not interested in rectifying the records/registers and they continued the violation of the Act and Rules. ( 6 ) FINALLY, it has been contented that the prosecution report/complaint did not contain the propriety of the O. P. No. 2 as "inspector" by the appropriate Government, notified in the official Gazette as provided under Section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act and further no sanction has been obtained before prosecuting the petitioners under Section 22-B of the minimum Wages Act, 1948 and. that the cognizance of the offence has been taken by the cjm, Jamshedpur in a mechanical manner without applying his judicial mind. ( 7 ) ON the other hand it has been submitted on behalf of the opposite party that when the o. P. No. 2 with other witnesses had inspected the premises of Graduate Engineers Hostel on july 15, 2002 at 5 p. m. . 8 workers were found to be working as Security Guards. Notices were issued to the petitioners as well as Major bansal, employer of M/s Bharat Special security Guards vide letter No. 2341 on July 26, 2002 but without response and it was gathered by the prosecution party that the petitioners as well as Major Bansal were the employers of M/s Bharat Special Security guards and therefore, they were responsible for over all management. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party further contended that as per notification No. XI/m. W.-4022/94 L and E-810 dated december 21, 1995 the Government notified the minimum wages for any shop establishment other than that covered under any of other entries in the schedule and therefore, contention of the petitioners that such employment in the Hostel does not come within the Schedule Employment is distortion of fact and is misleading. ( 9 ) AS regards sanction for launching prosecution the learned counsel submitted that the sanction was obtained vide Order No. 156 dated August 26, 2002, being Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit and therefore, the cognizance taken by the CJM was legal and justified. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners stated that the opposite party miserably failed to bring any material or notification on the record to infer that the O. P. No. 2 was an "inspector", duly notified in Gazette, appointed by the Government under provision of the Minimum Wages Act for the nature of the employment involved in this case. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted, controverting the averment made in the counter-affidavit by the opposite party, that prior to taking cognizance of the offence no sanction letter was produced with the complaint/prosecution report as it did not contain therein. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted, controverting the averment made in the counter-affidavit by the opposite party, that prior to taking cognizance of the offence no sanction letter was produced with the complaint/prosecution report as it did not contain therein. As a matter of fact an information slip was filed in the Court of Shri s. N. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, jamshedpur on August 25, 2004 enquiring as to whether any sanction letter was filed by the complainant in C/2 Case No. 2006/2002 till august 24, 2004 which was replied in negative till the date of supplying information on august 25, 2004, that means false affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party and it indicates that they have not come with clean hands and have misled this Court. ( 12 ) THE petitioners relied on a decision in state of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and Others, air 1998 SC 2327 in which the Apex Court held: "in the present case except the bald statement in the complaint that the respondents were Directors of the manufacturers, there is no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that they were incharge of the Company and also responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed. " ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the rival contentions of the parties on the facts as well as law, I find that the opposite parties failed to connect the petitioners as the employer of the employees working in Graduate Engineers Hostel, telco Plaza Area M-53. Jamshedpur. The prosecution report is silent as to how many persons were working there as employees in the hostel and no substantive proof has been given as to whether such employees as domestic servants, managed by the different Committees of the Hostel, come within the category of schedule Employment. The propriety or the o. P. No. 2 as "inspector" for launching prosecution has also not been proved by documentary evidence. The propriety or the o. P. No. 2 as "inspector" for launching prosecution has also not been proved by documentary evidence. Though I find that annexure-B alleged to be the sanction order for launching prosecution against the petitioners has been annexed with the counter-affidavit vide administrative sanction No. 156 dated august 26, 2002 accorded by the Deputy commissioner of Labour, Jamshedpur but the sanction letter was not supported with the prosecution report/complaint as is evident from annexure-4 filed on behalf of the petitioners which clearly indicates that no sanction letter was produced in the Court of Shri S. N. Tiwari. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in c/2 Case No. 2006/2002 till August 25, 2004 though the cognizance of the offence was taken by the CJM on August 26, 2002 which is bad in law under Section 22-B (1) (a) either in law or on facts and that the opposite parties herein failed to connect the petitioners as the employer of the employees of the said Graduate engineers Hostel. ( 14 ) IN the result the order impugned dated august 26, 2002 passed by the CJM in C/2 case No. 2006/2002 with the entire criminal prosecution arising out of, against the petitioners, is quashed. This petition is allowed. --- *** --- .