Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 454 (PAT)

M. A. Siddiqui v. Union of India

2012-03-14

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER : Heard Shri Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bijay Kumar Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. The petitioner, who was at the relevant time General Manager, B.S.N.L., Gaya Telcom District, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an ORDER :dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.O. Case No.250 of 2007 (Tr. No.54 of 2007). The learned Magistrate, by the impugned ORDER :, has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 23 and 24 of the Central Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since in the present case, petitioner has questioned the ORDER :of cognizance on the ground that ORDER :of cognizance was passed after three months i.e. the period fixed for filing complaint, the court is of the opinion that there is no need to deal with detail of the fact of the case. It was asserted in the complaint petition that on 24.8.2007, the opposite party no.2 conducted an inspection and found several irregularities attracting penal provisions under the Act. Though inspection was conducted on 24.8.2007, it was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint was filed on 27.11.2007 i.e. after three months form the date of inspection/ knowledge of the said offence. The petitioner has further taken a ground that being General Manager of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., the petitioner was not liable to be prosecuted for alleged offences. While taking the plea for quashing of the ORDER :of cognizance on the ground of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 27 of the Act, which prohibits a Magistrate in taking cognizance of offence, if the complaint is filed after three months from the date of alleged occurrence. In support of his stand, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an un-reported ORDER :passed by this Court on 20.6.2011 in Cr. Misc. No.25063 of 2008. The petitioner has brought on record a copy of the said ORDER :as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has also brought on record subsequent ORDER :i.e. ORDER :dated 28.9.2011 passed in the said case, whereby in respect of certain dates, ORDER :was modified to that extent. 3. Misc. No.25063 of 2008. The petitioner has brought on record a copy of the said ORDER :as Annexure-1 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has also brought on record subsequent ORDER :i.e. ORDER :dated 28.9.2011 passed in the said case, whereby in respect of certain dates, ORDER :was modified to that extent. 3. Accordingly, it has been argued that in view of the facts and circumstances, the ORDER :of cognizance in the present case may also be quashed. 4. Shri Bijay Kumar Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He has referred to averment made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. He submits that complaint was filed within three months and the date of filing of the complaint has been mentioned as 22.11.2011 and accordingly, it has been argued that petitioner may not get any benefit from the ORDER :passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.25063 of 2008 as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has brought on record certified copy of ORDER :sheet of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in G.O. Case No.250 of 2007, which starts from 27.11.2007 to 31.1.2008. From the ORDER :sheet, it is evident that complaint was filed on 27.11.2007 and on the same date, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence. Moreover, by filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has pleaded that opposite party no.2 has made an incorrect statement regarding date of filing of the complaint. 6. In view of the fact mentioned in the certified copy of the ORDER :sheet, there is no reason to dis-believe the averment made by the petitioner that complaint was filed on 27.11.2007 and, accordingly, it is evident that complaint was filed after three months in contravention of Section 27 of the Act and as such the learned Magistrate was not required to take cognizance of such complaint. 7. The court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s case is almost similar to the case of Sita Ram Singh in Cr. Misc. No.25063 of 2008. 8. Accordingly, the ORDER :of cognizance dated 27.11.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.O. Case No.250 of 2007 (Tr. 7. The court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s case is almost similar to the case of Sita Ram Singh in Cr. Misc. No.25063 of 2008. 8. Accordingly, the ORDER :of cognizance dated 27.11.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in G.O. Case No.250 of 2007 (Tr. No.54 of 2007) is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.