Mustaq S/O Sayedahemad Haveli vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mustaq S/O Sayedahemad Haveli vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2009

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

IN THE HIGi~i COURT 01? KARNA'l'A¥{A_  I   

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARwA;)..__ _j '  F.

Dated this the 04*" ciay    *  "

Bﬁfcrt

ma HOIWBLE MR JUSTICE' UVADI. _  

CRL P NG.'?'08iZ;'~Q_9 &.<C'R'L Tf-jé 1§03?033]09""'

Betwszcnz   1   
 V cRL,AP'm',?08'2..i'09~_ .V  "

A(}.E}Q:2§j{E}iRS =:,__ V

OCC B:JsIN'ES;s  _  _

R/0 Yf;Si1'~§ ENG'm~EER;1'~:G-WGRKS

NEAR AMBEDKAR~0:.RTc.L§:- 

BIJAPUR ROAD  " Q .  '

JAMKHANIH» " _     PETITIONER

MUSTAQ sjo s.s}v§i§:3AHjE§gv;AD--.iiA$*EL1'

 '~  _(By..':§:i E. S pA:1?1'L; ,a..§*<z)

TH KARNATAKA
R] 3 ':'rs-- SPF

"-».c;RcU'r1fBENcH AT DHARWAD  RESPONDENT

 PRAKASH Gomunmx, $913}

av'



CF21. P 510.7083/{)9
Between:

MUSTAQ s/0 SAYEDAHEMAD HA'\IELI._
AGED ABOU'§':'2-6 YEARS I

acc gusxpmss R/0 YASIN

ENGINEERING WORKS

NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE

BIJAFUR ROAD   "   .  
JAMAKHANDI    PETI'i'i{)_NE_R

(By Sn: 5; s PATIL, Amy" _ 

And:     

THE STATE       

R/B ITS SP1'  I '       

CIRCUIT amiss I561' m4IARI1_IiAI>""  RESPONDENT

(By Sn};  _- SPF)
'?HES.I%:_ QR:}.II%$,"1'fI'I'I.§i'I\Is FILED 11/8 482 OF CR.P.C.

PRzg$I;f;'NgI.TIIA'I* T8718 IIOIWBLE COURT MAT BE PLEASE!)

 V'  -TO "QiIAs.II THE pIé€3é:EEDII~II3s ANS THE OREER DATED
 :23L--II77::::<I§Iai,'I'IV§éAssED BY THE F'RL.C..J. (JR.DN.) AND
;I~MI*{i:;  « ;}A.IvI§i'I?IAI~4;)I IN C.C.NO.169/2908 Am)

<::.C;4NG.,.I'63j§'2Q03I

 V  ~  T§§ESE CRIMINAL PEFITEGNS ARE CQMING ON FOR
._  _";gI;IIsIIssI0N THIS BAY, THE COURT MAD}; THE;
 FIILLGWING: 



ORDER

These two petitiozxs have been ﬁled seeking tcru the preceedings before the JMFC, V' C.C.Nos.}_69 am: 168 of 2008 datedv2'1'-?.<30C§4i§." i

2. The petitioner is the o\§:xei~...ef Eugmeeﬁng workshop ﬁ1eAV_nVé§1ne"Vand .'s;if,r1e'A Yasin Engineering Works. The"~I:h$peetér:,{eehave visited the shop on 3{)~8--2(}{3--7_ noted the vio}atioViVzs"efA the Karnataka Shpps and Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1963,"

V' ﬂied, the learneci Iviagistxtate has of the offence on 21~07~2()08. Hence, 'etizese petitions seeking to quash the eroceedings. 4% H Heard the learned counsei for the rctspeetive parties. W

3. According t0 the iearneai counsel for the pe'§.i,*;i$3.§'r,:" K the erdetr slmet it is mentioned that the has proceeded tea take: cognizance i7ii$::A»Vi:}i4e'Qfi%:;nce The Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

6, The learned G0vé1~';;rne:1'{"'P1é§a:iEi1*._.sub£ﬁii¥<:d' that by eversight it is mcxztioneﬁ as Act by the

-clerk, but it . (me Shop$ and Commercial"E'é;ta$1ié3;j$né;;t§"~~_A¢'€', In that View of the matiar; " ii; '0f...ﬂ§e ieained Govemmcni PZeadéi'._th;it be rectiﬁed by the learned Magistx'atV%:% iii: vieiations one under the «_ SfiépsVV___g3;;ri Commemial Establishments Act, »:§§1h 2 ' 'E'. as limitatioza is concerned, the iearned caunsel "f03fp€tifiC#I}€:i' submitted that cegxsjzance of the eﬁencc to have been taken within six months, but it 13 taken " V' " ﬁeyond six months. As suc}:1,_tl1e proceedings am liable: to 95'"

be quashed. According to him, the Inspe-'strtmj _ shop on 3o--08-2007 but the aiicgcati date of_fher $5"

on 21-02-2008 and the Iearned_ M;§gigtra:é'AA.'11;;s--..M:' cog}:1izaI1<:é: on 21-$2008. accqzfgiﬁsg zto petitioner, the complaint is i"1'1'V<"=;zfiT:§'.:r:3'oz1o;V1" ;)f six months. in this }:ttgar§:1',~~..¢_thc:«" Plcader submitted that taking 30"" August 200? wherc:a§: 'V 21-2~2008, the camplaint is" However, on reading Shops and Commercial See}: that no court shall take Cognﬁzazicﬁ wf1y (:;t'1"€::1<":::. ii31der this Act or any caréer made themiglzxder, un1&£23V'_p§xmp1ai11t thereof is made Within six ﬁ.'QII},j f}}.f__3 day on which the oﬁiexzce is alleged to have "'t:t:%éé21_c<)V'n1:%_:.§v&--t_t1':{1V; J V. Ii:'"ﬂ:1e instant case, the learned Magistrate Shawn to }-:;é1v§:"iakeB. cognizance on the complaini said to have bean

-~vf1i€d cm 21~2-2608. However, the leameﬁ Magistrate has EV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court