Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 31 (JHR)

Bangali Baboo v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-01-16

D.K.SINHA

body2008
ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order impugned dated 3.11.2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 against the petitioner and accordingly, summon was directed to be issued against him. 2. The impugned cognizance order has been challenged and assailed on the ground of limitation as contained in Section 27 of the said Act. 3. Section 27 of the Act deals with the limitation of the prosecution: No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an in spector. Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 4. The learned Counsel submits that there is no material on the record to show that the petitioner had disobeyed any written order of the Inspector, so as to stretch the period of limitation from three months to six months so as to prove that the complaint was filed on 3.11.2006 within the period of limitation since the day of inspection on 27.6.2006. 5. Mr. Prasad further points out that the petitioner at the relevant time was the Director, Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkom, Ranchi which is an unit of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India and in that manner he was public servant working in his official capacity, but no sanction was obtained as required under Section 197 of Cr PC before launching prosecution against him and, for want of which taking of cognizance of the offence against him is perverse which is liable to be quashed. of India and in that manner he was public servant working in his official capacity, but no sanction was obtained as required under Section 197 of Cr PC before launching prosecution against him and, for want of which taking of cognizance of the offence against him is perverse which is liable to be quashed. The allegation was that he had violated certain provision of Rules 7, 81(1)(1), 81(3), 82(2) and 74 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 but according to the learned Counsel, such allegations are uncalled for in view of An-nexure-3, which is an Agreement Deed between the Indian Lac Research Institute having its office at Namkum, Ranchi and M/s Wing Security, having its office at Ramayana Enclave, 3rd floor, RIMS Bypass Road, Ranchi. The duty was assigned to the security agency, aforesaid, to carry out the security and watch and ward of the farms, office and residential premises at Indian Lac Research Institute, Namkum, Ranchi. In that manner the petitioner was not at all liable for infringement of any provision of any Rule or Act. 5.1 Mr. M. Khan, the learned Addl. Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of Indian fairly conceded on the point of law. 6. I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and hold that the impugned order dated 3.11.2006 bearing cognizance of the offence as taken against the petitioner in Case No. C-III/126 of 2006 pending before the Court Shri Yogesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi cannot sustain. Accordingly, it is quashed. This petition is allowed.