IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45084 of 2007 Basudeo Prasad, Son of Late Hira Sao, Resident of Gola Road, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Sri Mukul Kumar Sinha, Labour Superintendent, Nawada. 3. Sri S.M. Wasimul Haque, Peon in the office of Labour Superintendent, Nawada. ----------- Opposite Parties ----------- 3 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, while assailing the impugned order taking cognizance dated 10th March, 2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, has his plain and simple defence in paragraph no.11 of the quashing application, which reads as follows:- “11. That the petitioner has already obtained registration under the Bihar Shops and Establishment act bearing Registration No. 1911, Nawada in the name and style of M/s Lucky Flour Mill. The registration was granted in the year 1991 and is renewed from time to time, renewal fees has already been deposited up to 31.12.2007 and the authorities have made endorsement on the licenses is valid up to 31.12.2006.” In this context, the petitioner has 2 also filed photocopy of the alleged registration certificate in terms of Rule 3 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Rules framed under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act. Noticing the aforementioned submissions, this Court by an order dated 22.1.2009 had issued notice to the opposite party no.2 but despite service of notice, no one has appeared on his behalf. Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned counsel for the State, however, would submit that it would be difficult for this Court to accept that annexure-4, the alleged photocopy of the certificate of registration, is an authentic document. He would further submit that since the only allegation against the petitioner in the prosecution report was that he was operating his shop without its being registered under the aforementioned Bihar Shops and Establishment Act and Rules, this aspect of the matter can be now gone into by the concerned court by looking into the authenticity of the certificate of registration. In the light of the aforementioned 3 submissions, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by either admitting this application or awaiting the appearance of the opposite party nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate either himself or through his counsel within a period of one month from today with his original certificate of registration and in the event, the court below would find that the allegation in the prosecution report against the petitioner was wholly unsustainable in view of the original certificates of registration produced by the petitioner, it would drop the prosecution and at the same time would also initiate action against the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 for launching a frivolous prosecution against the petitioner. On the other hand, if the certificate of registration filed by the petitioner (photocopy of which is contained as Annexure-4 to this application) is found to be incorrect/forged, the court below will immediately proceed to conclude the trial and pass its order by also taking into account 4 that the petitioner had tried to mislead the court of law by producing a forged document. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)