IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19959 of 2004 K.C.RAUT @ KRISHNA CHANDRA RAUT, The then Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna Circle, Patna at present Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Calcutta. ……….Petitioner Versus (1). THE STATE OF BIHAR (2) THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Sri S.K. Roy, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Maurya Lok Complex, 2nd Floor A Block, 4th Floor, Room No. 6, 16 & 17, Patna- 800 001 ……….Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 05. 27.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None turned up on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 in spite of appearance. This an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of order dated 17.01.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in S.O. Case No. 546 of 2003, taking cognizance after condoning the delay for the offence under Sections 10 (1) (a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The learned counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions, first that inspection was made on 10.12.2002, but the complaint was filed on 15.12.2003 that is after expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 (2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code since the punishment for the offence, if committed is fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) or imprisonment for one 2 month. The second submission is that as per complaint petition mandatory sanctioned was taken by Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna, who according to the complainant was competent authority while notification no. 175 (E) dated 06.03.1976, but said notification is not at all applicable in face of subsequent notification no. S.O. 68 (E) dated January 28, 1981, through which Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi is the competent authority who accord sanction. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not meet of these two questions, however it is submitted that the delay has already been condone by the court below while taking cognizance for which separate petition was also filed along with the complaint petition. It is admitted position that inspection of the Branch was done on 10.12.2002 and the inspecting authority simply found none maintenance of particular register in proper way. Complaint petition was filed on 15.12.2003 on certain reasons (absence of presiding officer) no order as regards to cognizance was passed till 17.01.2004, but the petition seeking condonation of delay annexed with complaint petition, speaks absolutely nothing, but stating nature of different engagements of the complainant without specifying details of any such engagements with specific dates only on hypothetical statements, the delay in filing of the complaint cannot be ignored. Apart from the above since it is undisputed position that without any sanction of appropriate authority cognizance for the offences aforementioned could not have been taken, the complainant 3 though has mentioned in Para 7 that the complainant is armed with the sanction accorded by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna as authorized under notification in the year 1976, but in face of subsequent notification of the year 1981 even if Regional Labour Commissioner had any such authority earlier is now not competent to accord sanction at least since after notification aforementioned in the year 1981. In view of the above two aspects, the impugned order is not sustainable, accordingly passed and this application stands allow. Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)