IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2698 of 2010() ------------------------- ST.1431/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- ABRAHAM JOSEPH, TOMS TEXTILES, M.C.ROAD, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SRI.V.V.MITHUN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- ASST.LABOUR OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, ALONG WITH CR.MC NO.2812 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.2698, 2701, 2812 & 2813 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner in all the captioned matters is stated to be the proprietor of a textile shop viz., Toms Textiles, in Ettumanoor. The common respondent in these petitions, Assistant Labour Officer, II Circle, Kottayam, had initiated proceedings by filing four complaints against the petitioner, imputing violation of the rules covered under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1950 and Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958. The four complaints filed by the Labour Officer with respect to the offences imputed under the Acts and Rules referred to above are now pending in trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Ettumanoor. Admittedly, prosecution evidence in all the four complaints are over. Three of them are tried jointly and the other one separately. After questioning of the accused under Section 313 Crl.MC.2698/10 & con. Cases. 2 Cr.P.C., the cases stood posted for defence evidence. On perusing the copies of the orders which are produced in the respective cases by the petitioner, it is seen that the learned Magistrate had closed the evidence since the petitioner did not adduce evidence despite providing more than one opportunity to do so. Applications moved by the petitioner for re-opening the defence evidence, it is seen, were later allowed. When the cases were again posted for adducing defence evidence, the petitioner/accused remained absent and thereupon, learned Magistrate closed the evidence again. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the application moved by him stating reasons for his absence was accepted by the learned Magistrate being satisfied of the grounds stated thereunder. Petitioner is the proprietor of a business concern and therefore, he had to leave the State to collect materials and textile goods required for carrying out his business, and that was the reason which prevented him from appearing before the court on the day fixed for letting in defence evidence, submits the petitioner. Crl.MC.2698/10 & con. Cases. 3 Learned Magistrate, having allowed the application for exemption and thereby condoing his absence, should not have closed the defence evidence is the further submission. Though there appears to be some force in the submission made by the counsel, having regard to the several opportunities extended by the court below to the petitioner to lead defence evidence, that too, by allowing his application for re-opening of the evidence after it had been closed on his failure to lead evidence, much merit cannot be given to the leniency shown by the learned Magistrate in allowing his exemption petition and condoning his absence on the date when the cases were posted for defence evidence. At the most, that was only an act of indulgence by the court in not cancelling his bail. Whatever that be, on the given facts and circumstances and also taking note of the prosecution launched against the petitioner for violation of the labour laws, I feel that the petitioner has to be provided one more opportunity to lead evidence in support of his defence. But that can be allowed only on terms. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.250/- Crl.MC.2698/10 & con. Cases. 4 each, that is, a total sum of Rs.1,000/- as a condition precedent to enable him to lead evidence in support of his defence in the four cases. If such payment is made within three weeks from today, learned Magistrate shall grant him opportunity to lead defence evidence. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cases now stands posted to 20.8.2010. Learned Magistrate shall fix the cases three weeks thereafter and subject to satisfaction of the aforesaid condition, proceed further with the trial of the cases and dispose of the complaint cases in accordance with law. The petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.13/08.