Karnataka High Court
Leamak Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs Assistant Controller Of Legal ... on 8 June, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19652
CRL.P No. 9817 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9817 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
LEAMAK HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.
SARKHEJ BAVLA HIGHWAY
MATODA - 382213
AHMEDABAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MR.TUSHAR PATEL
MANAGING DIRECTOR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARVIND RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF
BK LEGAL METROLOGY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF INSPECTIONS SQUAD - 4
KARNATAKA APMC YARD
C BLOCK (NEAR MERCHANT BANK)
CHITRADURGA - 577 502.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19652
CRL.P No. 9817 of 2021
28.09.2017 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-2, DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.1147/2017 (ANNEXURE-A
TO THIS PETITION) AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the
order dated 28-09-2017 passed in C.C.No.1147 of 2017 by the
learned Magistrate, Davangere.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Rao, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in
the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the co-
ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.3712 of 2010 disposed
on 05-11-2013 and that of this Court in Crl.P.No.3119 of 2018
disposed on 14-12-2021, both of which consider the issue,
whether the complaint could be filed beyond the period of
limitation.
NC: 2023:KHC:19652
CRL.P No. 9817 of 2021
4. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.3712 of
2010 disposed on 05-11-2013 holds as follows:
".... .... ....
5. In the light of the contentions urged, a perusal
of the provision of the Act would indicate that for any
contravention of Section 39, it is provided that 'fine' is
imposed as penalty on conviction. In this regard, the
limitation as contemplated under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
would provide that the period of limitation for taking
cognizance in such circumstance would be six months. If
these aspects are kept in view, in the instant case, it is
seen that the inspection was conducted on 26.12.2008
and the complaint was filed on 25.06.2009. The
cognizance was taken on 29.12.2009. Taking these
aspects into consideration, in my opinion, further detailed
discussion of the matter is not necessary inasmuch as
this Court in Crl.P.No.4335/2003, disposed of on
09.01.2008 (a copy of which is available at Annexure-S)
in a similar set of circumstance has held that the
cognizance taken and the summons issued was not in
accordance with law and the order impugned therein had
been set aside. Therefore, to the said extent, the same
would become squarely applicable to the instant facts as
well.
6. Further, what is also necessary to be noticed in
the instant facts is that though the complaint was filed
under the provisions of the Act alleging violation of the
said provision, the order dated 29.06.2009 whereby the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance would indicate
that the complaint referred to by the learned Magistrate
which is said to have been perused and the documents
are also noticed by the learned Magistrate while taking
cognizance is under Section 92 of the Factories Act. This
in itself would indicate that the learned Magistrate has not
applied his mind before taking cognizance. Though to the
said extent, it could have been a situation where the
matter could have been remitted to the learned
Magistrate for reconsideration, keeping in view the order
at Annexure-'S' which has already been referred to
hereinabove, where in a similar set of circumstance, this
Court was of the view that when the cognizance taken is
NC: 2023:KHC:19652
CRL.P No. 9817 of 2021
beyond the period of limitation even such course is
unnecessary, in the instant case also the reconsideration
will not arise.
7. Hence, keeping all these aspects in view, the
proceedings in C.C.No.14078/2009 pending on the file of
VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stands
quashed.
The petition is allowed accordingly."
Further, this Court in Crl.P.No.3119 of 2018 disposed on
14-12-2021 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
3. The solitary submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners is, the complaint is
filed beyond the stipulated limitation of six months. The
inspection was carried out on 30.9.2015 and the
complaint is registered on 01.04.2016 which is admittedly
beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the
statute. Learned counsel would place reliance upon the
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of MR.SRINIVASRAO VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in 2000-2018 LMLPC 1141, wherein this
Court, considering identical set of facts where the
inspection was carried out on 26.12.2008 and complaint
was registered on 25.06.2009 held that it is beyond the
period of limitation and the proceedings stood quashed.
4. In the light of the mandate of the statute that
the complaint should be preferred within six months from
the date of inspection and the law laid down by this Court
(supra) interpreting the said provision of law, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
NC: 2023:KHC:19652
CRL.P No. 9817 of 2021
(ii) Impugned order dated 01.09.2016 passed by
the I Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court,
Mayo-Hall, Bengaluru qua the petitioners,
stands quashed."
5. In the light of the issue standing covered on all its
fours by the judgments quoted (supra), which cuts at the root
of the matter, the proceedings instituted would be rendered
unsustainable.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 28-09-2017 passed in
C.C.No.1147 of 2017 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class-II, Davangere stands
quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKP
