Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

Did Not Appeared Before This Court To Led ... vs & 2 Appeared Before This Court And They ... on 16 April, 2018

6   C.C.No.727/2010
                            5                    C.C.No.727/2010




                  ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON COMPLAINANT SIDE:
                 NIL

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON COMPLAINANT SIDE:
                 NIL

LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
                  NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
                  NIL




                            (Sanjeevkumar S.Hindoddi)
                          P.O, MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT,
                                  BANGALORE.
                                  4                    C.C.No.727/2010


of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Sr.APP posted

this case for judgment. Since this case is of the year, 2010 and no

purpose would be served again reissuing of summons etc., as the

complainant did not appeared before this court to led his evidence,

the prosecution fails to establish the charges leveled against A1

and A2.

     For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

                            ORDER

Acting U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.22-A of Minimum Wages Act.

The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused No. 1 & 2 shall stands cancelled, after lapse of appeal period is over.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof computerized and print out taken by her is verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of April, 2018 ).

(Sanjeevkumar S.Hinddodi) P.O, MMTC-I, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.

Minimum Wages Act. The same was read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the matter was posted for evidence.

4. In every criminal trial, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove the alleged guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Now let me see whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

5. In the present case, the complainant has lodged the complaint against A1 and A2 for the offence U/s.22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. After the cognizance of the case, accused -1 & 2 appeared before this court and they were enlarged on bail. On perusal of the ordersheet, this court issued summons to CW-1 on 26-6-2015 since from the date of issuance of summons to the complainant, he did not appeared and contest this case and lead his side evidence. In spite of issuance of summons and NBW against CW-1 on several times , he did not turn up. This Court also issued proclamation against CW-1 on 13-3-2018 , proclamation is duly published , but CW-1 failed to appear before this court. Hence, CW-1 is dropped by rejecting the prayer of Sr.A.P.P. as there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused persons . this court has dispensed with the recording of statement 2 C.C.No.727/2010 complainant found the discrepancies and contravened the following provisions viz:

1)Failed to maintain Workers Register as required u/s.18 Rules 24(9) (c ) of the Minimum Wages Act.

2)Failed to submit Annual Report for the year 2009 in Form -

U as required under Rules 22(4) of the Minimum Wages Act.

3)Failed to provide the wages slip in Form-VI to the workers as required u/s.18 Rules 29(2) of the Minimum Wages Act .

4)Failed to Display of abstract of Act and Rules as required u/s.18 Rules 23 of the Minimum Wages Act.

5)Failed to display information showing weekly holiday, wages, date of payment of wages etc. on the notice board in Form -XIII as required u/s.18 Rules 30(A) of the Minimum Wages Act.

6)Failed to maintain abstract book and not provided during inspection as required u/s.18 Rules 30 of the Minimum Wages Act.

And thereby accused contravened the provisions U/s.22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

3. After appearance of the accused-1 & 2 , they were enlarged on bail and relevant copies of complaint were furnished to them. My predecessor in office has framed the plea against the accused persons for contravened aforesaid offences u/s.22(A) of the IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-1, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.

Present:- Sri Sanjeev Kumar S. Hindoddi, B.Com., L.L.B.(Spl.) Dated this the 16th day of April, 2018.

C.C.No.727/2010 Complainant:- State by the Senior Labour Inspector, 8th Circle, Bangalore.

                        (Rep.by Sr.APP)

                              Vs.

Accused :-             1) Glen Williams, owner

                       2) Jude S., Manager
                        M/s. Sweet Chariot,
                        # 11, Curzon complex,
                        Brigade Road,
                        Bangalore.

                       (Rep.by N.Dhanasegaran, Adv.)

                        JUDGEMENT

The Senior Labour Inspector, 8th Circle has filed the complaint against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. R/W/S. 22(B) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT IS AS UNDER:

That on 17-05-2010 at about 1-00 p.m. the complainant visited the accused establishment M/s. Sweet Chariot, # 11, Curzon complex, Brigade Road, Bangalore and on inspection,