* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 314 OF 2008 Shri. Kishandas Tejmal Barmecha and Ors. ....Applicants. V/s. Shri.Sunil Janardan Khandre & Ors. ...Respondents ======= Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude, h/f.Mr.S.B.Deshmukh, adv.for applicants. Mr.Vaibhav Patankar h/f.Mr.R.S.Apte, adv.for respondents. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 4TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 28th January, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 585 of 2004. 3. The brief facts leading to the above application are as follows : . Respondent no.1, Sunil Khandare was working as a lecturer in the junior college run by Shirur Shikshan Prasar Mandal. * 2 * Applicants no.1 and 2 are the office bearers of the mandal and applicant no.3 is the principal of the college. The services of respondent no.1 was terminated on 16th June, 1997. He challenged the termination order by filing Appeal No. 37 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Service] Regulation Act, 1977. (hereinafter referred to as the `MEPS Act'). By the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2000 the appeal was allowed and the order of dismissal was quashed and set aside. It was directed that respondent no.1 be reinstated in service with effect from 16th January, 1997 with full backwages. This order of the School Tribunal was challenged by the applicants by preferring Writ Petition No.6997 of 2007. During the pendency of the petition, by the order dated 8th April, 2002 the applicants were directed to deposit the entire amount of backwages in the court, which direction has been complied with by the applicants. 4. In the meantime, respondent no.1 had filed Contempt Petition being Contempt Petition No.224 of 2000 in this court for implementation of the order of the School Tribunal. The Contempt Petition was dismissed by the order dated 25th July, 2000 since there was remedy available to respondent no.1 under Section 19 of the MEPS Act. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed a criminal case being C.C.No.116 of 2001 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirur alleging that offence was * 3 * committed by the management under Section 13 of the MEPS Act. The trial court on 5th September, 2001 issued process against the applicants and respondent no.2 herein. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, the applicants filed Revision Application No.585 of 2001 in the Sessions Court, Pune. That revision application was dismissed by the order dated 27th September, 2002. Thereafter, on 7th May, 2003 an application was moved by the applicants before the trial court submitting that by the order dated 8th April, 2002 Writ Petition No.6997 of 2000 was allowed and Appeal No. 34 of 1997 was remanded to the School Tribunal for fresh hearing. Since the order dated 7th January, 2000 had been set aside, the proceedings under Section 13 of MEPS Act had become infructuous. The applicants however, had instead of seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the same had become infructuous, sought their discharge. The application at Exhibit-20 was considered and the following order passed : “1. Application is allowed. 2. The present proceeding stands quashed by recalling order of issuance of process dated 5th September, 2001. 3. The accused stands discharged/released for the offence their bail bonds stands cancelled.” Respondent no.1 then preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 585 of 2004 to challenge the order on Exhibit-20. The Sessions Court by its order dated 28th January, 2008 allowed * 4 * the revision application, restored the criminal case to file and directed the learned Magistrate to decide the same as early as possible. The reasons for allowing the revision application as seen from the impugned order is that the learned Magistrate neither had inherent powers to quash the proceedings nor could recall his order of issue of process and discharge the accused. According to the Sessions Court, the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not find support from any of the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Mr.Bhargude, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no error committed by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint. He submits that since the order dated 7th January, 2000 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune region of which respondent no.1 sought compliance was challenged by the applicants by filing Writ Petition No. 6797 of 2000. On the applicants depositing the entire amount of backwages in the court, the order came to be stayed. Later, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 7th January, 2000 was set aside. Therefore, criminal proceedings had become infructuous and could not have been continued. 7. Mr.Patankar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the order had been in operation since 7th January, 2000 till it was stayed. During this period, it ought to have been complied with by the applicants. Since the same was not complied with, * 5 * the offence under Section 13 of M.E.P.S.Act was complete. Therefore, the process issued was justified. 8. The charging part of Section 13 of M.E.P.S.Act reads as follows : “S.13. Penalty to Management for failure to comply with Tribunal's directions : (1) If the Management fails, without any reasonable excuse t comply with any direction issued by the Tribunal [under section 11 or any order issued by the Director under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 4A within the period specified in such direction, or as the case may be, under sub-section (5) of section 4A or within such further period as may be allowed by the Tribunal or Director, as the case may be,”] the Management shall, on conviction, be punished,..........” Reading of Section 13 makes it clear that the purpose of the same is to ensure prompt compliance with the directions of the School Tribunal rather than to punish any individual. The failure in compliance with the directions of the School Tribunal is qualified by “without any reasonable excuse”. Therefore, any and every non-compliance will not attract the provision. Looking to the purpose and language of the provision, it cannot be equated to the offences under Indian Penal Code or any other penal statutes. My view as regards the object and purpose of the provision is fortified by the objects and reasons for the amended Act by which Section 13 of M.E.P.S.Act came to be amended. Earlier the punishment provided under Section 13 of the Act was only of fine. In the year 1995, the M.E.P.S.Act was amended to provide for stringent punishment of imprisonment along with higher amount of * 6 * fine. The statement of objects and reasons for the amending Act, states that “Delay in the implementation of the decisions of the Tribunal amounts to denying justice to the aggrieved teachers. Therefore, in order to ensure strict and prompt compliance with the directions of the School Tribunal by the managements of the private schools, Government considers it expedient to amend the said Section 13 of the Act to provide for stringent punishment of imprisonment along with higher amount of fine aimed at serving as deterrent against such non-compliance”. 9. It is thus seen that the purpose of the provision of Section 13 is to ensure compliance with the directions of the School Tribunal, where there is no reasonable excuse for non- compliance. In other words, what is penalised under the provision is deliberate defiance of the orders. In this view of the matter, a question arises whether the applicants have exhibited deliberate defiance of the order dated 7th January, 2000 passed by the School Tribunal. In my considered opinion, the answer will have to be in negative. The said order of the School Tribunal was challenged by the applicants by filing Writ Petition in this court. On an application for interim reliefs, the order came to be stayed on condition that the applicants deposit the amount of backwages in the court. This direction was complied with by the applicants. Then, the writ petition came to be allowed and the matter remanded to the School Tribunal for re- * 7 * hearing. When on re-hearing the same order was passed, the applicants complied with the same by reinstating respondent no.1. The period of non-compliance of the order by the applicants was from the date of the order i.e. 7th January, 2000 till the date on which interim orders were passed in the writ petition. It cannot be said that there was no reasonable excuse for the applicants for non-compliance. Therefore, the facts of the case will not fall within the ambit of Section 13 of M.E.P.S.Act. 10. Mr.Bhargude, draws the attention of the court to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class, Ghodanadi dated 1st July, 2004 quashing the proceedings and discharging the applicants. Merely because these are the words used by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, it cannot be said that the he has exercised either the inherent powers not available to him and discharged the applicants. If one reads the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate in its entirety, it is seen that he dismissed the complaint because he found that nothing was surviving therein, once the applicants succeeded in the writ petition. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion the impugned order cannot be justified and the same has to be set aside. Hence, the order. O R D E R 11. The revision application is allowed. The order dated 28th January, 2008 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, * 8 * Pune is hereby set aside. Criminal Complaint No.116 of 2001 is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]