Director (Forest) vs Labour Inspector on 29 August, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Director (Forest) vs Labour Inspector on 29 August, 2019

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                          1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA


         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1641 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

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

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H R, ADVOCATE)

AND

LABOUR INSPECTOR
TIRTHAHALLI, CIRCLE,
TIRTHAHALLI - 577432.
                                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE ADDL. SPP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2016
PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE CRL.R.P. FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN CRL.R.P.NO.75/2015 ANNEXURE-A AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2015
                              2




PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
TIRTHAHALLI IN C.C.NO.97/2015 TAKING COGNIZANCE
OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
U/S 200 OF CRPC R/W SEC.22(2) OF THE CONTRACT
LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 (ACT
OF 1970) AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION    COMING     ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent and perused the records.

2. The relief claimed by petitioner is misconceived. Petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 27.1.2016 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.75/2015 and thereby confirming the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Thirthahalli in C.C.No.97/2015 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 22(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

3. The petitioner is not an accused before the Trial Court in her individual capacity. On the other hand, the 3 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. As the petitioner is not prosecuted in her 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 tsn*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court