Siby Sudheesh vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 9994 Ker

Kerala High Court

Siby Sudheesh vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

CRL.REV.PET NO. 351 OF 2024

                                       1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
         FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 351 OF 2024
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2023 IN CMP 5433/2019 IN ST
  NO.144 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             SIBY SUDHEESH, AGED 40 YEARS,
             W/O SUDHEESH V SEBASTIAN, VALIYAVEETTIL PUTHENCAVU
             CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PROPRIETRESS OF M/S ARCHANA
             SILKS, MC ROAD, PIN - 689121

             BY ADV PADMALAYAN.P.P.


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER GRADE -II,
             CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
             PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031


             PP SMT NIMA JACOB


      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 351 OF 2024

                                           2


                                         ORDER

A discharge application by the sole accused in a

crime registered alleging offence under Sections 22A

of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, for the violation of

Rule 29(1), Rule 29(2), Rule 29(5), and Rule 21A(2)

of the Minimum Wages Rules, 1958 was dismissed on the

sole ground that the complaint was not filed within

the period of limitation available under the

provisions of the abovesaid Act. The inspection was

conducted on 22.02.2019. As per Section 22(A), the

time began to run from the date of notice of

knowledge of concerned officer. Six months time is

available. The complaint was filed on 24.08.2019.

It is permissible to deduct first day for computing

the period of limitation. Then the complaint ought

to have been filed on 23/08/2019, that day was a

holiday. As such, it was filed on the next working

day 24/08/2019 and it is within time. But the

question of limitation as an abundant caution is left

open for consideration by the trial court at the CRL.REV.PET NO. 351 OF 2024

proper stage of the proceedings. Prima facie it

appears that the application was submitted within the

time. Hence, the dismissal of discharge application

deserves no interference by this court.

The Criminal Revision Petition fails and is

dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp