Delhi High Court
United News Of India vs State & Anr on 19 July, 2018
$~24 to 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 19th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3272/2016 and Crl. M.A. 13943-13944/2016
UNITED NEWS OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
with IO Pushpa and Manish Kumar
+ CRL.M.C. 3308/2016 and Crl. M.A. 14064-14065/2016
VISHWAS TRIPATHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun K. Sharma, APP for the
State with IO Pushpa and Manish Kumar
+ CRL.M.C. 3309/2016 and Crl. M.A. 14066-14068/2016
ASHOK TUTEJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
with IO Pushpa and Manish Kumar
+ CRL.M.C. 3349/2016 and Crl.M.A. 14189/2016
Crl. M.C. No.3272/2016, 3308-09/2016, 3349/2016, 3350/2016 & 23/2017 Page 1 of 5
SANJAY KUMAR TIWARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
with IO Pushpa and Manish Kumar
+ CRL.M.C. 3350/2016 and Crl. M.A. 14193/2016
SHRIPATI ANKOLKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with IO Pushpa and Manish Kumar
+ CRL.M.C. 23/2017 and Crl. M.A. 137/2017
P K MAHESHWARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Upadhyay, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State with IO Pushpa and Manish Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. These petitions take exception to the order dated 21.08.2015
passed by the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
on the criminal complaint (30/1/15) instituted by the second
respondent with the prayer for the proceedings in the said case,
particularly the said order, to be set aside and quashed by this court in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioner in the first captioned petition describes itself as a
company engaged in the business of news agency for collection and
distribution of news to the media, print, electronic etc. The petitioner
Sanjay Kumar Tiwary (Crl. M.C. 3349/2016) is described as the
Administrative Officer of the company while other petitioners are
described as directors of the said company. The criminal complaint
case was instituted on 14.08.2015 by the second respondent seeking
criminal prosecution of these petitioners for the offence under Section
18 of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees
(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for
short, "the Act, 1955"). It may be mentioned here that the said
offence is punishable with fine only and, thus, is to be tried as a
summary case by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. In the wake of recommendations of a panel described as
"Majithia Wage Board", the Government of India had issued an
notification vide no.SO.2532 (E) dated 11.11.2011. It is stated that
the said notification was upheld by the Supreme Court by order dated
07.02.2014 in a writ petition. The first petitioner is stated to be a news
paper establishment covered by Section 2(d), it being an employer
within the meaning of the Act, 1955 and consequently obliged to abide
by the requirements inter alia of Section 17A. Against the said
backdrop, the Deputy Labour Commissioner of the Government of
NCT of Delhi had called upon the company, its chairman and three
directors by communication dated 15.06.2015 to produce certain
records including the register of employees, service register in respect
of working journalists, the leave register, muster roll and certain
further information. It is alleged by the respondent that there was no
compliance with the said communication and, therefore, show cause
notices were issued on 16.06.2015 insisting on reply and information
with caution that, in case of default, it would be presumed that the
direction of the Supreme Court in the order dated 07.02.2014 in
respect of Majithia Wage Board, recommendations had not been
implemented, this leading to initiation of proceedings under the Act,
1955. A reply dated 24.06.2015 appears to have been sent on behalf
of the company accused, inter alia, stating that the establishment had
been running into heavy losses and was "not required" to pay the
arrears, there being "no occasion" for it to revise the salary after
implementation of the new pay scales. The records and information as
required not having been produced or furnished, the complaint for
penal action under Section 18 of the Act, 1955 was filed in the court
of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate by his
order dated 21.08.2015 treated it as a complaint by a public servant
and, thus, dispensed with the pre-summoning inquiry and on the basis
of the material submitted therewith took cognizance issuing process
against the petitioners.
4. The grievance urged in the petitions at the hearing is that the
summoning order passed by the Magistrate is mechanical, there being
no application of mind, there being no proof that the individuals who
have been added to the fray of accused were responsible for the
conduct of the business of the company or were in charge of its affairs.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this court
finds no reason for any interference at the initial stage of the criminal
process before the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The
necessary averments about the individuals, who are added as accused
being responsible for day-to-day affairs and business of the company /
newspaper establishment have been made in (fourth para of) the
criminal complaint. The complainant, should the case be contested, as
the petitioners are entitled to do so, would be obliged to bring proof in
respect of the said allegation so as to bring home their guilt.
6. Reserving the right of the petitioners to raise all defences
available to them in law before the court of the Magistrate, these
petitions and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 19, 2018
yg
