High Court Karnataka High Court

Jagruti Asset Protection And … vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Jagruti Asset Protection And … vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
THE HOIWSLE MR;J1__JS'I'lACE_ !S', AN.r."1$:y;.At%_V  
cg    

Jagruti Asset Protecfiop   

No.118, 2"' Flper,._ 14*'? Cmae, 1¢._B1ock  
RaJa.ima4;a:;vto1o _ '  kt
Rep. by itg«*Chief._E?;c'.1jtiy¢--..._  

Sr: K.S1*.a';'....e""-;.-r '

%j

The State at  '  
 then  Enfomament Oflioer (Central)
 of the Regiu*~--=*- 'Labour Commissioner (Central)

 

\.I'I.\IC'I-'J

' '  31.1.1 flwmu' aid Main

  Yeehwenthapur Industrial Estate 3" Phase
" ._ 'E';3ngaio:e--5i;'si's"fi22.  Ream:-..-ls:-.t

(By Sti "tfltietriprasad. 

z "..'-'i';l1i1s Criminal petition is filed under section 482 _ Cr.P.C..

» AA praying to quash the complaint in C.C.No. 14202/2002, on the file
'  " Of}?! A.C.M.M., Bangalore 815 etc.

This petition coming on for final hearing this day. the Court

 made the following:



ape;  A; 54:, 19?'; {for short. 'the A.c."} for videleflon o

Is)

IIQIIID

The petitioner arrayeci Vss  '  = V. 

No. 1420212002 on the file of  

filed this peiition to quash pItioeediiigs"iherei:1;?.  

2. I have heard   and

learned Central   :« 'Counsel for

respondent
3'     has made

   fl     

:’a._Tl1e”not legally competent to present
the 26 of the Interstate Migrant
‘V i of Employment 8:. Conditions of

th_.

._ fwovisiozgs the Act.

u .. under section 2(1_](_a_) of the Act. ‘appropriate

* ;.L…,=.-er;r..r:-…:z=.- …a.._ bee- d_.fi_net_1, reads thus:-

“2 “-“-‘Hz.-‘.5:-{1} In this Act. 1.1-1I.1.as.Is fl_._Ie

I IIVIIKIUI

context otherwise requires-(a) “appropriate

Government” means- N JQW Qvwoflxw

‘–= –.–r

U3

(:3 m_…_ti..oo. t-:.–

(1) any establishment pertaining
industry ooniod on:-‘hy’–«oArfAunnieif._theft
authority of the coooo1o,iicovommooiii
pertaining to any’ snch V

8 may no ti1is*

fin] % “emmem; . E

(2) any esta’i:«]_ishniL:nt;j_’ org any Iaihvny,

Cantonment or oil-

(3) ‘any of «sf; or insnmnce
1: fioiveinment;

L oi ‘the State in which that
ii 4′ inotheriestaiiiishinent is situated?’

In on hand, there is no material to hold

‘ comes within the definition of section

ieétmi)ioE’iuo:i[Aoo The Court below before piooooaing with

ooooploiot should have conidered locus stsndi of

“-acifliiplviiiinant. Therefore. I 31!! of considered opinion matter

= reconsideration by the nod. !U!;a.gisn’;=.tei

1\2.&~~9″””§0″”‘

«in-

The impugned order is sift “?”‘;1€:.. ,fi:f~)

remanded to learned Magistrate to«cpi’1aider = *’

compla1nan’ t. in the light of ol’)’V’eVie;1.fiIaa\t_ionsV” mad. in V

accordance with law. V .c