IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 436 of 2009() --------------------------------------- ST.5724/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- P.P.JOSEPH, AGED 75, S/O.PAPPACHAN, PRESIDENT, ERNAKULAM GENERAL WORKERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO-S-IND(E) 50, EDAYAR, MUPPATHADAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.LITTO VARGHESE PALATHINKAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT IN ST AND STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, GRADE-III, NORTH PARAVUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ============= Crl.R.P. No.436 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009 ORDER Heard both sides. The Assistant Labour Officer Grade III, North Paravur filed a complaint on 13-10-2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur to prosecute the petitioner herein described as the President of the Ernakulam General Workers Industrial Co-operative Society Limited, Edayar for offences punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 read with Rules 29(1), 29(2) and 29(5) of the Minimum Wages Rules alleging that the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences on 3-4-2008. Going by Section 22B(2)(b) of the said Act the complaint should have been filed within a period of six months from the date of occurrence. This means that the last date for filing the complaint was on 3-10-2008, but the complaint was filed on 13-10-2008. The proceedings of the Magistrate does not show that delay was either explained or the petitioner was heard before the delay was condoned. If at all the Magistrate Crl.R.P.No.436 of 2009 - 2 - could condone the delay by re-course to Section 473 of Cr.P.C. the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences beyond the period of limitation without hearing the accused is illegal as held in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SHARADCHANDRA VINAYAK DONGRE & OTHERS [AIR 1995 SCC 231]. The impugned order taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process to the revision petitioner is accordingly set aside. S.T.No.5724 of 2008 shall stand re-stored to file and shall be disposed of in accordance with law. In case, the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation and in case a petition is filed to condone the delay, delay shall be condoned only after giving the petitioner/accused an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision petition is allowed. Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009. V.RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) skr