JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. V. P. Singh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener. 3. Heard Mr. Raj Vardhan, counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2. 4. I.A. No. 9211 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the intervener, namely, Kaushalya Devi who claims to be wife of Late Lalu Prasad. Counsel for the intervener submits that the case before the learned court below has been instituted on the basis of order dated 7th April, 2004 passed in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997, wherein certain amount was directed to be paid to Lalu Prasad, who expired during the pendency of this case and the intervener is the wife of Lalu Prasad. He submits that the interest of the intervener is directly affected and accordingly intervener may be permitted to assist this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has no objection, if the intervener is permitted to assist this Court. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the intervener is permitted to assist this Court on the basis of materials available on record and is added as Respondent No. 3. Office is directed to carry out necessary correction in the cause title. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9211 of 2017 is disposed of. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have been heard at length. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed for challenging the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner in B.S.E. Case No. 01 of 2005 including order dated 28.08.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro by which summons have been issued against the petitioner. He submits that order dated 26.02.2010, by which non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner, is also under challenge. He further submits that order dated 28.08.2009 was challenged by the petitioner in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2010, but the same has been dismissed on account of delay in filing the criminal revision and due to non-filing of petition for condonation of delay. The order passed by the revisional court is also under challenge. 9. The order passed by the revisional court is also under challenge. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the merits of the case, submits that the entire criminal proceeding in the present case has been instituted on the basis of order dated 7th April, 2004 in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City under Section 28(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (now Jharkhand Shops and Establishments Act, 2001) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953) and the said order was forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro vide letter dated 10.08.2005 for recovery of the amount accessed and found payable to the applicant (Lalu Prasad) of B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997. 10. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 28 of said Act, any amount directed to be paid under the said section shall be recovered in the prescribed manner. He further refers to Rule 23 framed under the aforesaid Act of 1953 (Now Jharkhand Shops and Establishments Rules, 2001) which provides for the manner of recovery of the amount directed to be paid. He submits that the Rule 23 of the said Act of 1953 clearly provides that the amount is to be recovered, as if, it was a fine imposed by the concerned Magistrate. He has further referred to provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submits that the procedure for the purposes of recovery of fine has been provided under the said section and as per the said section, there is a clear provision that the amount is to be recovered by issuance of a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any property belonging to the offender. 11. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, as per the order passed under the aforesaid Act of 1953, the offender is Bokaro Steel City, Central Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited, Sector-IV, Plot No. A/9, City Centre, Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro through the Secretary. He submits that the opposite party in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997 is the said Co-operative Stores and accordingly the steps were required to be taken against the said Co-operative Stores. He submits that the opposite party in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997 is the said Co-operative Stores and accordingly the steps were required to be taken against the said Co-operative Stores. In such circumstances, the summons issued in the name of the petitioner vide order dated 28.08.2009 as well as the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner vide order dated 26.02.2010, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that whatsoever demand was required to be recovered, was against the said Co-operative Stores and the warrant of arrest and summon was not required to be issued against the petitioner in his individual name. The counsel refers to Annexure-4 of this petition and submits that the petitioner was an employee of the Bokaro Steel City and accordingly Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel City, nominated the representative of Bokaro Steel City Limited Management on the Managing Committee of the Bokaro Steel City Central Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited vide letter dated 16.01.1997 and in that capacity, the petitioner was nominated as Secretary of the said Co-operative Stores. He further submits that the petitioner has no objection for any attachment and sale of the property of the Co-operative Stores, but no proceeding including summons and warrant of arrest could have been issued by the learned court below against the petitioner in his individual capacity. 12. Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener submits that in spite of orders passed way back in the year 2004 under the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1953, the amount was not paid to the original applicant who is now deceased. He submits that there was an interim order passed in this case and accordingly appropriate direction may be issued for expediting the case against the said Co-operative Stores. So far as the case against the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has got no independent role to play and the recovery is to be made from the assets of the said Co-operative Stores. He submits that this Co-operative Stores must be maintaining a bank account and the amount involved in this case is a small amount which can be recovered by the attachment of the bank account of the aforesaid Cooperative Stores also. 13. Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 submits that he has got no instruction in the instant case at present. 13. Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 submits that he has got no instruction in the instant case at present. However, on the point of law, he is also not in a position to dispute that the amount as per the order passed under the aforesaid Act of 1953, is to be recovered from the Co-operative Stores only. 14. After hearing the counsel for the for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the order under the aforesaid Act of 1953, dated 7th April, 2004 in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997 was passed against the Bokaro Steel City Central Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited and the matter was referred to the learned court below, in view of the provisions of Rule 23 of the aforesaid Rules read with Section 28 of the aforesaid Act of 1953. 15. Rule 23 of the aforesaid Rules is as under:- 23. Recovery of amount directed to be paid by authority. – Any amount directed to be paid under Sections 26 and 28 may be recovered- (a) if the authority is a Magistrate, by authority as if it were a fine imposed by him as Magistrate; and (b) if the authority is not a Magistrate, by any Magistrate, to whom the authority sends written requisition duly signed and sealed in this behalf, as if it were a fine imposed by such Magistrate. 16. Section 421 of Cr. P.C. provides as under:- 421. Warrant for levy of fine. 16. Section 421 of Cr. P.C. provides as under:- 421. Warrant for levy of fine. – (1) when an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may- (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender; (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorizing him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under Section 357. (2) The State government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender. 17. Accordingly, this Court finds that the amount which was assessed in the aforesaid proceedings under the then Bihar Shops and Establishments Act of 1953, is required to be recovered as per provisions of Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by attaching the properties of the person against whom the order was passed under the provisions of Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. This Court finds that as per letter dated 14.08.2005, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro had made a petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro for recovery of the amount in terms of the order dated 07.04.2005 passed in B.S.E. Case No. 02 of 1997 and pursuant to this letter, the present case being B.S.E. Case No. 01 of 2005 was instituted and on 10.08.2005 the proceedings for recovery had commenced. 18. This Court further finds that vide order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, the name of the petitioner was given and summons were issued and thereafter non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued vide order dated 26.02.2010 against the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that as per the provisions of Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the amount is to be recovered by attaching the property of the person against whom the order under the provisions of Shops and Establishments Act has been passed and in the instant case, it is the Bokaro Steel City Central Consumers Co-operative Stores Limited against whom such order has been passed and not against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.08.2009 whereby summons were issued against the petitioner as well as the order dated 26.02.2010 whereby warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, are hereby quashed and set aside. So far as the impugned revisional order is concerned, since the order issuing summons as well as the order issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner, have been quashed as aforesaid, the revisional order is of no consequence for any practical purpose. The learned court below is directed to proceed against the Co-operative Stores for realization of the amount. 19. This Court further observes that the present case has been pending since long, accordingly, appropriate direction is required to be issued for expeditious disposal of the case before the learned court below. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is observed that the learned court below shall make all endeavour to take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount from the aforesaid cooperative stores in accordance with law. 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is observed that the learned court below shall make all endeavour to take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount from the aforesaid cooperative stores in accordance with law. 20. Since the original applicant (Lalu Prasad) in the proceedings under Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 has expired and the intervener claims to be the wife of Late Lalu Prasad, the intervener may take appropriate steps before the learned court below to ensure recovery of the amount at the earliest. For the purposes of disbursal of the amount, it is made clear that same will be done as per law. 21. This petition is accordingly allowed. 22. Pending Interlocutory applications, if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned immediately through ‘FAX’.