P.S.Sasikumar vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8417 Ker

         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

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

Crl.M.C No. 6298 of 2019

prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner.

SD/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk

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