HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4113 OF 2001 Dated:08-07-2010 BETWEEN: P.S.A.Narasimha Murthy …Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4113 OF 2001 ORDER: This criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in M.P.No.1458 of 2001 in M.P.No.1069 of 1993 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parvathipuram and also the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. The Assistant Labour Officer, Parvathipuram filed M.P.No.1069 of 1993 under Section 20(5)(g) of Minimum Wages Act against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.19,397.50 ps. as fine imposed by the Court. The Court took the same on file and when the notice was issued, it was returned as refused. Then the Court issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner on 25.5.1994. For recalling the non-bailable warrants, the petitioner filed an application and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the petitioner was called absent and therefore, distraint warrant was issued against the petitioner on 29.6.1994. Against the said warrant, the petitioner filed a revision in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 1994 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Sessions Judge initially stayed the distraint warrant on condition of petitioner paying half of the amount i.e. Rs.9,698.75 ps. before 25.7.1994. As the petitioner failed to comply with the said conditional order, the said revision was dismissed confirming the distraint order issued by the Magistrate. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not paid the said amount. Again when the petitioner was called absent, non-bailable warrant was issued on 28.9.1999. On 28.12.1999 the petitioner filed an application to recall the warrant and the said application was allowed and the non-bailable warrant was recalled. Thereafter, though the matter was called on nine occasions, the petitioner did not choose to present in the Court and therefore, again on 20.9.2000 non- bailable warrant was issued against him. Seeking to recall the said warrants, the petitioner filed the impugned application viz. M.P.No.1458 of 2001. By the impugned order, the lower Court dismissed the said M.P. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed. Having regard to the above conduct of the petitioner, it is not a fit case where this Court can exercise the inherent jurisdiction to aid the petitioner in avoiding the payment of amount due under the Minimum Wages Act. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, on petitioner appearing before the lower Court and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety for the likesum and on his depositing half of the minimum wages, the non-bailable warrants shall be recalled. In failure to do so, it is open for the Court below to execute the warrant. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J JULY 08, 2010 Tsr.