IN THE HIGi~i COURT 01? KARNA'l'A¥{A_ I
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARwA;)..__ _j ' F.
Dated this the 04*" ciay * "
Bfifcrt
ma HOIWBLE MR JUSTICE' UVADI. _
CRL P NG.'?'08iZ;'~Q_9 &.<C'R'L Tf-jé 1§03?033]09""'
Betwszcnz 1
V cRL,AP'm',?08'2..i'09~_ .V "
A(}.E}Q:2§j{E}iRS =:,__ V
OCC B:JsIN'ES;s _ _
R/0 Yf;Si1'~§ ENG'm~EER;1'~:G-WGRKS
NEAR AMBEDKAR~0:.RTc.L§:-
BIJAPUR ROAD " Q . '
JAMKHANIH» " _ PETITIONER
MUSTAQ sjo s.s}v§i§:3AHjE§gv;AD--.iiA$*EL1'
'~ _(By..':§:i E. S pA:1?1'L; ,a..§*"" RESPONDENT
(By Sn}; _- SPF)
'?HES.I%:_ QR:}.II%$,"1'fI'I'I.§i'I\Is FILED 11/8 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRzg$I;f;'NgI.TIIA'I* T8718 IIOIWBLE COURT MAT BE PLEASE!)
V' -TO "QiIAs.II THE pIé€3é:EEDII~II3s ANS THE OREER DATED
:23L--II77::::<I§Iai,'I'IV§éAssED BY THE F'RL.C..J. (JR.DN.) AND
;I~MI*{i:; « ;}A.IvI§i'I?IAI~4;)I IN C.C.NO.169/2908 Am)
<::.C;4NG.,.I'63j§'2Q03I
V ~ T§§ESE CRIMINAL PEFITEGNS ARE CQMING ON FOR
._ _";gI;IIsIIssI0N THIS BAY, THE COURT MAD}; THE;
FIILLGWING:
ORDER
These two petitiozxs have been filed seeking tcru
the preceedings before the JMFC, V’
C.C.Nos.}_69 am: 168 of 2008 datedv2’1′-?.<30C§4i§." i
2. The petitioner is the o\§:xei~…ef
Eugmeefing workshop fi1eAV_nVé§1ne”Vand .’s;if,r1e’A Yasin
Engineering Works. The”~I:h$peetér:,{eehave visited the
shop on 3{)~8–2(}{3–7_ noted the
vio}atioViVzs”efA the Karnataka Shpps
and Act, 1961 and the Rules,
1963,”
V’ flied, the learneci Iviagistxtate has
of the offence on 21~07~2()08. Hence,
‘etizese petitions seeking to quash the eroceedings.
4% H Heard the learned counsei for the rctspeetive parties.
W
3. According t0 the iearneai counsel for the pe’§.i,*;i$3.§’r,:” K
the erdetr slmet it is mentioned that the
has proceeded tea take: cognizance i7ii$::A»Vi:}i4e’Qfi%:;nce The
Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
6, The learned G0vé1~’;;rne:1′{“‘P1é§a:iEi1*._.sub£fiii¥<:d' that by
eversight it is mcxztionefi as Act by the
-clerk, but it . (me Shop$ and
Commercial”E’é;ta$1ié3;j$né;;t§”~~_A¢’€’, In that View of the
matiar; ” ii; ‘0f…fl§e ieained Govemmcni
PZeadéi’._th;it be rectified by the learned
Magistx’atV%:% iii: vieiations one under the
«_ SfiépsVV___g3;;ri Commemial Establishments Act,
»:§§1h 2 ‘
‘E’. as limitatioza is concerned, the iearned caunsel
“f03fp€tifiC#I}€:i’ submitted that cegxsjzance of the efiencc
to have been taken within six months, but it 13 taken
” V’ ” fieyond six months. As suc}:1,_tl1e proceedings am liable: to
95′”
be quashed. According to him, the Inspe-‘strtmj _
shop on 3o–08-2007 but the aiicgcati date of_fher $5″
on 21-02-2008 and the Iearned_ M;§gigtra:é’AA.’11;;s–..M:’
cog}:1izaI1<:é: on 21-$2008. accqzfgifisg zto
petitioner, the complaint is i"1'1'V<"=;zfiT:§'.:r:3'oz1o;V1" ;)f six
months. in this }:ttgar§:1',~~..¢_thc:«" Plcader
submitted that taking 30"" August
200? wherc:a§: 'V 21-2~2008, the
camplaint is" However, on
reading Shops and Commercial
See}: that no court shall take
Cognfizazicfi wf1y (:;t'1"€::1<":::. ii31der this Act or any caréer made
themiglzxder, un1&£23V'_p§xmp1ai11t thereof is made Within six
fi.'QII},j f}}.f__3 day on which the ofiiexzce is alleged to have
"'t:t:%éé21_c<)V'n1:%_:.§v&–t_t1':{1V; J
V. Ii:'"fl:1e instant case, the learned Magistrate Shawn to
}-:;é1v§:"iakeB. cognizance on the complaini said to have bean
-~vf1i€d cm 21~2-2608. However, the leamefi Magistrate has
EV