Sanjeev Shinde @ Sanjeev Dattatray ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 4460 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4460 Jhar
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2023

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjeev Shinde @ Sanjeev Dattatray ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2023

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                      1                   Cr.M.P. No. 1758 of 2015



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr.M.P. No. 1758 of 2015
                     Sanjeev Shinde @ Sanjeev Dattatray Shinde ... Petitioner
                                           -Versus-
                1.   The State of Jharkhand
                2.   Alok Tripathi                             ... Opposite Parties
                                              -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Petitioner         : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
            For the State              : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
                                              -----

04/07.12.2023        Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

            Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2011 in CL

Case No.160 of 2011, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is

the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad-III and an Inspector

under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 having jurisdiction over the establishment of the

accused persons. Opposite party no.2 inspected the establishment of the

accused persons on 22.06.2011 and observed that in contravention of the

notification No. S.O. 2063 dated 21.06.1988 issued by the Ministry of

Labour and Employment, Government of India, the employer has engaged

36 Contract Labourer by M/s Vin Balajee JTT (JV) Contractor for executing

the contract work of removal of overburden and extraction of coal at Sendra

Bansjora Project, M/s BCCL, Dhanbad. The above offences were recorded in

the inspection report cum showcause notice dated03.08.2011 and were sent

to the accused persons by registered A/D post and the same has been

served upon them. The accused persons were aware that the notification

prohibiting the employment of Contract Labour has been issued. The

accused-petitioner and the contractor have conjointly committed the

offence.

4. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the

relevant time, the petitioner was the General Manager of Sijua Area of BCCL

and he is not the principal employer as defined in Section 2(g)(iii) of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. He further submits

that in view of Section 25 of the Act, the persons who are responsible for

day-to-day affairs of the company can only be prosecuted, that too if the

company is made accused. To buttress this argument, he relied upon

paragraph 19 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , reported in

(2008) 5 SCC 662, which is quoted hereinbelow:

"19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the Company, even if the appellant was its Managing Director, he cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. If and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefor. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a Company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offense committed by the Company itself."

5. Mr. Allam, learned counsel for the State submits that violation is there

and that is why, the case has been rightly registered.

6. Looking into the complaint, the Court finds that there is no averment

that the petitioner was looking day-to-day affairs of the company and if

such a situation is there, the petitioner is not responsible. In this regard,

there are series of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well

as the High Courts. In view of that, to allow to continue the proceeding will

amount to abuse of process of law.

7. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal

proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2011 in CL

Case No.160 of 2011, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are quashed.