IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3654 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
M V PRASAD S/O LATE DR. S.MALLAIAH AGED 41 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, RAIL WHEEL FACTORY, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64 (BY SRI: SANJAY GOWDA N S, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, TUMKUR ROAD,YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU -22 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II ) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETR. IN C.C.NO.21216/2015 REGISTERED BY THE MMTC-III, BANGALORE FOR ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II for the respondent –State.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings initiated against him primarily on the ground that requisite sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not been obtained for prosecution of the petitioner.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner was working as a Deputy Chief Engineer at Rail Wheel Factory, Yelahanka, Bengaluru at the relevant point of time. The allegation against the petitioner is that in contravention of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, he allowed the contractor to engage 66 persons to work in the premises of the Factory.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in GENERAL MANAGER, WHEEL AND AXLE PLANT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, BENGALURU DIVISION-I, BENGALURU, reported in 1995 (5) Kar.L.J. 605 wherein in paras 5 and 6, it is held as under:-
“5. It is laid down by the Supreme Court in G.A. Monterio v The State of Ajmer, AIR 1957 SC 13, that the true tests in order to determine whether a person is an officer of the Government are:
(i) Whether he is in the service or pay of the Government, and (ii) Whether he is entrusted with the performance of any public duty.
After applying these two tests, the Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that an official or an Officer working in the Railways is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21, Indian Penal Code. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the two petitioners accused who are top Officers in the Railways are public servants.
6. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v Dr. Budhikota Subba Rao, AIR 1983 SC 901, that the requirement of obtaining sanction to prosecute is mandatory and taking cognizance of an offence in the absence of sanction cannot be allowed to stand. When once it is held that the petitioners-accused as public servants, the prosecution launched against them without obtaining permission as contemplated under Section 197, Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained.”
5. Following the ratio laid down in the above decision, it has to be held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the cognizance of the above offence by the Magistrate, without prior sanction of the competent authority under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has vitiated the proceedings. As a result, the proceedings pending in C.C.No.21216/2015 on the file of MMTC-III, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the respondent to comply with the above legal requirement and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-