G. Sukumar Vs. the Competent Authority Under Minimum Wages Act Cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour Ii,

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....granted which was subsequently made absolute on 15.9.2003. though the third respondent has been served privately, she has not appeared before this court either personally or through counsel.3. the defence taken by the petitioner was that subsequent to the order passed by the authority, he had paid the amount to the third respondent and she had executed a stamped receipt on 26.7.2001. when this fact was intimated to the first respondent, he has sent the impugned communication dated 3.8.2001 stating that such mode of payment is not acceptable and since the petitioner had not paid the minimum wages as directed by the authorities, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why criminal prosecution should not be launched against him.4. when the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why prosecution should not be launched, the petitioner should have very well satisfied the authority about the payment of the amount to the third respondent. even otherwise, under section 22b(2) of the act, no court can take cognizance of an offence unless an application is filed within one month from the grant of sanction and in case of sanction under section 22b(1) of the act, it has to be done by the state government or the authority nominated for this purpose. therefore, it is not as if the petitioner has no defence in case any proper complaint is lodged after getting sanction from the appropriate authorities. until such time, the petitioner cannot stall the show cause notice and it is open for him to make his explanation. even otherwise, if at all any criminal case is lodged, the petitioner can put forth all the defence. this court is not inclined to entertain a writ petition at the stage of show cause notice, as no right of the petitioner has been infringed by such notice.in the result, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs.