IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 6298 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 2163/2017 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
P.S.SASIKUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. SIVAN NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SARIGA
APPEALS (P) LIMITED PRIYADHARSINI ROAD,
PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT FO, BUILDTECH GREENS,
MANAPULY KAVU, KUNNATHUR MEDU POST, PALAKKAD 678
013
BY ADV U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERENAKULAM 682 031
2 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER,
PALAKKAD 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.M.C No. 6298 of 2019
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in S.T No. 2163/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad.
2. The aforesaid S.T was registered on the basis of Annexure A complaint filed by the Assistant Labour Officer alleging various offences punishable under the provisions of Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and also under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, when an inspection was conducted by the authorities concerned, in the shop named "SARIGA" in Palakkad, which is engaged in the sales of ladies wear on 25.04.2017, they noticed certain irregularities attracting various provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and also under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act.
4. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid shop was owned by the petitioner herein, and hence the prosecution was launched by filing Annexure A complaint. The cognizance was taken by the learned 3 Crl.M.C No. 6298 of 2019 Magistrate and the same is pending. This Crl.M.C is filed for quashing all further proceedings in Annexure A complaint.
5. Heard Sri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
6. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not the owner of the shop as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, it is a case of mistaken identity and he has nothing to do with the aforesaid shop. According to him, at the relevant time when the inspection happened to be conducted, he went there for supplying certain articles to the shop.
7. On perusal of the records, I am of the view that, the aforesaid question need not be considered in a proceedings of this nature.
8. The question of identity is a matter to be taken up by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. It is for the petitioner to establish the question of identity before the learned Magistrate.
In the said circumstances, this CrL.M.C is closed without 4 Crl.M.C No. 6298 of 2019 prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner.
SD/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk 5 Crl.M.C No. 6298 of 2019 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6298/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 04.10.2017 ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RCP 34/2010 DATED 30.1.2018 ON THE FLE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD