IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1764 of 2010() ------------------------------------- ST.4516/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- THOMAS MUTHOOT, MUTHOOT HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST CIRCLE, LABOUR OFFICE ANNEX, NEAR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1764 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 ORDER The petitioner who is the sole accused in S.T.4516 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram for an offence punishable under Section 29(3) (b) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 seeks to quash Annexure A-I private complaint and all further proceedings in the above case. 2. According to the petitioner he is the Managing Director of the company in question. Since the company falls under the definition of “factory” under the Factories Act, 1948, the present prosecution will not stand. The petitioner would further contend that in an earlier proceeding before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in ST No.661/1998, it was held that the company is a “factory”. 3. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate has not read over to the petitioner the substance of the accusation against the petitioner under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure. These are all contentions which the petitioner may profitably raise before the Magistrate when particulars of the Crl.M.C.No.1764/2010 : 2 : said offence are read over to the accused. In case there is no offence made out, there is no question of the particulars of the offence being read over to the accused. This matter is covered to the decision in Kamala Rajaram Vs. State of Kerala (2005 (3)KLT 617. Reserving the right of the petitioner, this case is dismissed. In case, the petitioner makes his submission before the Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure through his counsel, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same without insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioner. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj