9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of cognizance of offence under Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of Section 3(h) exemption for the Managing Director. 3. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Cognizance of Offence: The appeal was directed against the High Court of Karnataka's judgment dismissing a petition to quash the cognizance of offence under Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court III. The High Court altered the cognizance to Section 25 read with Section 30(1) of the Act. The appellant contended that as a Managing Director, he should be exempt under Section 3(h) of the Act and not liable for prosecution under Section 25 read with Section 30(1). The respondent argued that the language "Whoever contravenes" in Section 30 includes the Managing Director. 2. Applicability of Section 3(h) Exemption: The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant, being a Managing Director, occupies a position of management and is thus exempt under Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court, however, held that the exemption did not apply in this case and upheld the cognizance taken by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court noted that there is an apparent conflict between Section 30 and Section 3(1)(h) since while the latter exempts persons in management, the former's use of "whoever" could include such persons. The Court suggested that if persons in management are to be penalized, an amendment to the Act would be required. 3. Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in the rarest of rare cases. It is an exception to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court cited several precedents to illustrate the limited scope of this power, including cases where the allegations do not constitute an offence or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions. The Court reiterated that the High Court should not interfere with investigations or proceedings unless there is a clear case of abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. Separate Judgment by Markandey Katju, J.: Justice Katju concurred with the dismissal of the appeal but provided a separate judgment. He highlighted the apparent conflict between Section 30 and Section 3(1)(h) and agreed that the Managing Director is exempt under Section 3(1)(h). However, he did not express a final opinion on the merits, leaving it open for the trial court to interpret the provisions. Justice Katju also discussed the broader issue of the absence of anticipatory bail in Uttar Pradesh, leading to a high number of petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He strongly recommended restoring the provision for anticipatory bail to alleviate the burden on the courts and prevent unnecessary arrests. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision not to quash the cognizance of offence. The Court directed that the trial court should decide the matter expeditiously and uninfluenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court or the High Court. The trial court should also consider the maintainability of the complaint at the time of consideration of the charge, allowing the parties to urge all contentions available under the law.
|
