Karnataka High Court
Sri S M Madaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4964 OF 2012
Between:
Sri. S.M. Madaiah,
S/o late S.B. Muthappa,
Aged about 56 years,
General Manager,
M/s. TATA Coffee Ltd.,
Kushalnagar Works,
Kudige Post, Kushalnagar,
Somwarpet Taluk,
Kodagu District - 570 401. ...Petitioner
(By Shri. A.G. Holla, Sr. Counsel for
Shri. Vishwanath P.D., Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Deputy Labour Commissioner,
Hassan Region, Hassan,
Aralikatte Road,
Hassan - 573 201. ...Respondent
(By Shri. K.R. Keshav Murthy, SPP II for State)
---
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the C.C.No.804/2012 (PCR
No.171/2012) on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge &
J.M.F.C., Somwarpet, Kodagu Dist.(Annexure - 7).
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri A G Holla appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor.
The petition coming on for admission is considered for final disposal on a short ground. The facts are as follows.
The petitioner accused No.4 along with other officers of the company, incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in the sale of coffee, tea, cocoa, pepper and other forest produce in various estates at Kodagu, Hassan and Chickmagalur districts. Kushalnagar Works was a unit of the company. The second petitioner was the Managing Director from 03.01.2010 to 31.03.2015. The third 3 petitioner was Executive Director of the company. They are named as accused. The company complies with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the CLRA Act for brevity). The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hassan is said to have visited the unit without any notice on 22.11.2011. He had made an inspection and as per the inspection report the company had allegedly committed breach of the CLRA Act and it is on that basis that a show cause notice was issued on 20.01.2012. Thereafter on the explanation being offered by the company, proceedings have been initiated by a complaint filed by the respondents under Section 26 of the CLRA Act read with Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But the complaint has been instituted as on 16.05.2012, which is six months after the inspection. In terms of Section 27 of the CLRA Act the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Since the Section provides that no court shall take cognizance of 4 an offence punishable under the Act unless a complaint thereon is made within three months from the date of alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. Therefore, on that short ground alone the proceedings would have to be quashed as the court could not have taken cognizance beyond the period of limitation. The petition is allowed. The proceedings pending before the court below are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl