IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NO : 450 OF 2001 Between: P.Sreenvaa Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The State of AP, rep. by the Public prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No. 450 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, in Crl.M.P.No.629 of 2000 in S.T.C.No.482 of 1999, dated 08-02-2001, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint and discharge the petitioner-accused. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent i.e. the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Writers Basthi, Kothagudem, filed a complaint before the trial Court against the petitioner herein under Section 22 of Payment of Wages Act, 1956 (for brevity the Act) stating that the petitioner violated Rules 8 (1) (i), 8 (1) (ii), 8 (1) (iv) and 8 (2), 5 and 5-A of Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, and the same was numbered as S.T.C.No.482 of 199. Pending disposal of the said complaint, the petitioner filed the present petition to discharge him contending that he is not carrying any quarry operation in any said stone quarry and as such the complaint is not maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.Prabhakar Rao contended before this Court that the petitioner is engaged in the stone crushing business and he owns a stone crusher, but he does not have any stone quarry and according to him, if the alleged quarrying is taking place in a stone quarry, then only the Inspector i.e. Labout Enforcement Officer, Kothagudem, gets power to maintain a complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence or violated the Rules. 4. In my considered view the contention of the learned counsel for the petition cannot be accepted. In papa-3 of the complaint, it is stated as follows: “That the establishment of Stone Quarry in S.No.166/C of Anantharam village, Mahabubabad (M), Khamma-Distt. of M/s.Vennela Stone Crusher is an Industrial Establishment as defined under Section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.” From the above, it appears that it is a Stone Quarry, sitauted in Sy. No.166/C of Anantharam village, Mahabubabad Mandal. Whether the place, where the petitioner established the said stone crushing unit, is in a plain land or in a quarry is a matter of fact which has to be decided only after recording the evidence and the same cannot be gone into at the threshold. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly came to the conclusion that the petition filed with a prayer to discharge the petitioner is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same. 5. In my considered view, the order under impugned is perfectly justifiable and no interference is called for. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________ 5th August 2010 KVR