Full Judgment
2. Short fact of the case is that on 25.9.2001, an inspection was conducted by the Labour Superintendent-cum- Inspecting Officer, Minimum Wages Act and it was found that several provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were violated by the petitioner. Thereafter, a complaint was filed on 30.3.2002 alleging therein that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 22 A of the Minimum Wages Act. Since it was an official complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 13.5.2002 took cognizance of offence under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act.
3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 26.2.2004. While admitting, it was directed that pending disposal of this application, interim order dated 6.5. 2003 shall continue. The order of stay is still continuing.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance submits that the order of cognizance is barred under the provisions contained in Section 22B(2)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act. It was submitted that there is statutory provision for filing complaint within six months and no court is entitled to take cognizance if the prosecution report is filed after the statutory period of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the case, submits that in this case the date of occurrence is 25.9.2001 and the complaint was filed on 30.3.2002 and cognizance order was passed on 13.5.2002. Accordingly, it was submitted that the prosecution report was filed after expiry of the statutory period of six months and as prescribed under Section 22B(2)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act the learned Magistrate was not entitled to take cognizance and on this ground alone, it was submitted that the order of cognizance is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing the present petition has relied upon a Judgment of this Court reported in 1998 BBCJ 541;
5. Sri Shivesh Chandra Mishra, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner while referring to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the date of occurrence mentioned as 25.9.2001 is not correct. Actually this very date is the date of inspection. It was submitted that in the present case, the date of occurrence would be considered as 13.10.2001 when he was given opportunity and failed to rectify violations committed by him. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present petition.
6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the Parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute that as per the provision contained in Section 22B(2)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, no court is entitled to take cognizance under Section 22 A of the Minimum Wages Act if the prosecution report is filed beyond the period of six months from the date of occurrence. So far as the stand taken by Opp.Party no.2 in its counter affidavit that the date of occurrence will be considered as the date on which the petitioner failed to rectify the defect is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the said stand is not in accordance with law. In the present case, when inspection was done i.e. on 25.9.2001, it was noticed that the petitioner had violated the statutory provisions of the Minimin Wages Act and, as such, the Court is of the opinion that the date of occurrence would be considered as the date on which the offence was noticed on inspection by the complainant. Accordingly, in the present case, the prosecution report was filed beyond the statutory period as prescribed under Section 22B (2)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act . The Court has got no option but to quash the order of cognizance.
7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 13.5.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in Misc.Case No.74 of 2002 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.