ORDER : The present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District for the offences under Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1963. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21.09.2017 at 10.45a.m., the Assistant Labour Officer, Tadepallygudem has inspected the establishment namely Mahati English Medium Primary School run by the petitioner. When he inspected the bus, which belongs to the petitioner’s institution, bearing registration No.AP 37 TC 4659 meant for transportation of students, found certain irregularities such as the petitioner failed to submit annual returns in duplicate in From No.XIII in respect of Motor Transport undertaking thereby violating Rule 39 of Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 punishable under Section 32 of the said Act. Said complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate vide C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Aggrieved by the same, present Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings vide C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended on the ground that the Assistant Labour Officer, Tadepallygudem filed complaint alleging that the petitioner contravened the provisions under the Motor Transport Workers Act, No.27 of 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] and rules made there under, but in fact the provision of the Act applies where the establishment is employed by 5 or more workers, as Section 1(4) of the Act specifically envisaged about the registration of an establishment; according to the said provision the petitioner establishment has no obligation to register under the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and rules there under but without verifying the provisions the Assistant Labour Officer initiated prosecution against the petitioner herein, which is abuse of process of law and requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case is posted for evidence of LWs.1 to LW.3 on 05.08.2024, at this stage, the case against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in quash the proceedings in C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District for the offences under Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1963 made under? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the provision under Section 1 (4) of the Act and contended that according to the said provision the petitioner Institution has no obligation to register under the provisions of Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 9. For better appreciation, Section 1 (4) of the Act, is extracted hereunder: 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.- (1) This Act may be called the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961. (4) It applies to every motor transport undertaking employing five or more motor transport workers : Provided that the state Government may, after giving not less than two months’ notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to any motor transport undertaking employing less than five motor transport workers. 10. 10. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the G.O.Ms.No.17 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Labour-II) Department, dated 22.07.2018, wherein the Notification is extracted hereunder: “In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso of sub-Section 4 of Section 1 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (Central Act 27/1961) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No.10/1897), the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby rescinds the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1624, Home (Labour.II) Department, dated 11.10.1968 wherein the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to any Motor Transport Undertakings, employing less than five (05) Motor Transport Workers in the State of Andhra Pradesh; thereby restoring the prenotification status of application of the Act to every Motor Transport Undertaking employing five (5) or more Motor Transport Workers, the same having been previously published in part-1 Extraordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.48, dated 12th January, 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No.1, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.II) Department, dated 10th January, 2018 as required under the said proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 1of the said Act, 1961.” 11. As per the above Notification, the Government of Andhra Pradesh rescinds the previous notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1624, dated 11.10.1968 and restored the pre notification status of application of the Act to every Motor Transport Undertaking employing five (5) or more Motor Transport Workers, published in part-1 Extraordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.48, dated 12th January, 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No.1, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.II) Department, dated 10th January, 2018 as required under the said proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 1of the said Act, 1961. 12. In the instance case, even the complaint discloses that the number of Motor Transport workers employed in the petitioner’ School, are only two (02) numbers. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complaint made by the Assistant Labour Officer is not maintainable and the proceedings against the petitioner vide C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District are liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District is hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District is hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.