Director (Forest) vs Labour Inspector on 12 July, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Director (Forest) vs Labour Inspector on 12 July, 2019

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.1640/2016
BETWEEN:

DIRECTOR (FOREST)
(ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST AND DIRECTOR)
MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD.,
PAPER TOWN
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301
BY SMT. ANITHA AREKAL                   ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

LABOUR INSPECTOR
TIRTHAHALLI CIRCLE,
TIRTHAHALLI - 577 432                  ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP)
                              ---

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
(a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.27.01.2016 PASSED BY THE III
ADDL. S.J., SHIMOGA DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION CRL.R.P.NO.76/2015 FILED BY PETITIONER ANNEXURE-A;
(b) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2015 PASSED BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, THIRTHAHALLI IN C.C.NO. 96/2015
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 200 OF CR.P.C. R/W SEC.22(2) OF THE
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT AND QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN.
                                   2


      This Criminal petition coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the following:

                             ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP and perused the records.

The relief claimed by petitioner is misconceived. Petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 27.1.2016 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Jude, Shivamogga dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.76/2015 and thereby confirming the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Thirthahalli in C.C.No.96/2015 taking cognizance of the offence under section 22(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

2. The petitioner is not an accused before the Trial Court in his individual capacity. On the other hand, the complaint before the learned Magistrate indicates that Mysore Paper Mills, represented by its Director (Forest) was sought to be prosecuted. The said Mysore Paper Mills is represented by its Director who is authorized to represent the Mysore Paper Mills. 3 As the petitioner is not prosecuted in his individual capacity, revision preferred by petitioner as well as petition filed before this court are totally incompetent and misconceived and hence liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bss

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court