IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3174 of 2008() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/07/2008 IN CMP 6817/08 IN CC.66/2002 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- T.NANDAKUMAR, PADINJATTAYEDATH HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-28. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINOD KUMAR SRI.SUSHANTH.J. SRI. T.K.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. E.S.I.CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3174 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment as the first accused in a complaint filed alleging the offence punishable under Sec.85 of the E.S.I. Act. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of the 2nd accused establishment. Cognizance has been taken. The pre-charge enquiry is over. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has decided to frame charges against accused 1 and 2. 2. At this stage, the petitioner has filed an application requesting that the two other partners of the 2nd accused – firm (altogether, there are three partners) may also be brought on the array of accused. The learned C.J.M. considered the said application and by the impugned order, rejected the said prayer. The learned C.J.M. took the view that at the present Crl.M.C. No. 3174 of 2008 -: 2 :- stage there is no necessity to array anyone else as accused under Sec.319 Cr.P.C. After recording the entire evidence, the question shall be considered again, it was observed. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner is not against charges being framed against him; but only against the refusal of the court to bring in the two partners also on the array of accused. 4. The principal employer is the one liable to face prosecution under Sec.85 of the E.S.I. Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, being the Managing Partner, is the principal employer of the establishment. The petitioner places reliance on the partnership deed produced which shows that though the petitioner is designated as the Managing Partner, the two other partners can also take active interest in the conduct of the partnership and they are entitled to draw remuneration also. 5. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. When there is a partner designated as the Managing Partner and the complainant takes a specific stand that such Managing Partner is the principal employer, at this stage and with the materials presently available, I find no reason whatsoever to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to Crl.M.C. No. 3174 of 2008 -: 3 :- interfere with the impugned order and insist that such other partners must also be brought on the array of accused now invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Sec.319 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge