IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2008 M/S. V. B. S. ENGINEERING THROUGH PROPRIETOR P. S. SHETKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE REPRESENTED BY LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL) AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 20th February, 2009 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. 2. For the view which is being taken, the notice earlier issued to Goa Shipyard Ltd., by order dated 27/01/2009 is dispensed with. 3. The Complainant, a Labour Enforcement Officer, appointed by the Central Government (respondent no.1, herein) prosecuted the accused (the petitioner, herein) upon a complaint filed under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The establishment of the accused was earlier inspected by the complainant and the complainant found that the accused had violated certain provisions of the Rules framed under the said Act. The Complainant's contention was that the accused was registered contractor with the said Complainant and, moreover, was a contractor engaged by Goa Shipyard Ltd., which is a Central Government undertaking. Cognizance of the said offence having been taken by the learned JMFC, process came to be issued to the accused under the said Section for violation of certain provisions of the Rules framed under the said Act. The accused appeared before the learned JMFC and took the plea that the Complainant had no jurisdiction and, as such, no authority to prosecute him as the accused had his establishment registered with the Government of Goa under the Shop and Establishments Act and only a Labour Inspector appointed by the Government of Goa could have prosecuted by him since the appropriate Government was the Government of Goa. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. A revision filed by the accused also came to be dismissed by the learned Session Judge. Hence, this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Admittedly, under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after Adalat Prasad V/s. Jindal and Ors. (2004 (7) SCC 338) the process issued against the accused could not be recalled and, if that be so, even on that ground the Complainant had no jurisdiction. The plea taken by the accused was a matter which was an issue which was of mixed question of facts and law and could not have been examined without evidence being led in support of the same. It could have been examined only after sufficient material was placed before the Court. 5. That being the position, both the orders of the Courts below deserve and are hereby set aside. The point of jurisdiction raised by the accused shall be decided at the trial after both parties have an opportunity to place adequate material in support of their respective contentions. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH