Allowed

Mahathi English Medium Primary School v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Aug 2024CRLP/12475/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a primary school for alleged violations of the Motor Transport Workers Act, ruling that the Act does not apply as the institution employed only two workers, failing to meet the statutory threshold of five.

What did the court decide?

Impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.930 of 2017 maintained against the petitioner were quashed in its entirety.

Mahathi English Medium Primary School… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12475 OF 2018

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mahathi English Medium Primary School, Rep. by Sri B.V.S.Rama Krishna Manohar Employer, bus No.AP 37 TC 4659 Majeti Vari Street, Near Police Quarters, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.

¶7

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶10

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari^District.

¶12

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings

¶14

<- r

¶15

including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.930^{of2017onthefileof} the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D V V S S N FI BFIUJANGA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010873442018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 050 n AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

[3333]

¶23

MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12475/2018

¶27

Between:

¶28

Mahathi English Medium Primary School

¶29

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶30

AND

¶31

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶33

D VV S S N H BHUJANGA RAO

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:

¶35

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

ORDER;

¶38

Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal The present Criminal ed Procedure 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accus seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.930 of 2017^{onthefileoftheFirst} Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District for the offences under Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1963.

¶39

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21.09.2017 at 10.45a.m., the Assistant Labour Officer, Tadepallygudem^{hasinspectedthe} establishment namely Mahati English Medium Primary^School run by the petitioner. When he inspected the bus, which belongs to the petitioner’s institution. bearing registration No.AP 37 TC 4659 meant for transportation^of students, found certain irregularities such as the^{petitionerfailedtosubmit} annual returns in duplicate in From No.XIII in respect of Motor Transport undertaking thereby violating Rule 39 of Motor Transport^WorkersAct, 1961 punishable under Section 32 of the said Act. Said complaint^{wastakenonfile} by the learned Magistrate vide C.C.No.930 of 2017 on^the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem,^West Godavari District. Aggrieved by the same, present Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings vide C.C.No.930 of^{2017onthefileofthe} First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem^WestGodavari District.

¶40

¶41

\ •v

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended on the ground that the Assistant Labour Officer, Tadepallygudem filed complaint alleging that the petitioner contravened the provisions under the Motor Transport Workers Act, No.27 of 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] and rules made there under, but in fact the provision of the Act applies where the establishment is employed by 5 or more workers, as Section 1 (4) of the Act specifically envisaged about the registration of an establishment; according to the said provision the petitionerestablishment has no obligation to register under the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and rules there under but without verifying the provisions the Assistant Labour Officer initiated prosecution against the petitioner herein, which is abuse of process of law and requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶44

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits^thatthecase is posted for evidence of LWs.1 to LW.3 on 05.08.2024, at this stage, the case against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶45

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited^{oraffectedsoastomake} orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any^{orderundertheCodeor,} (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, othenA/lse (iii) to secure

¶46

¶47

7 r

¶48

ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked^{forcompelling} reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which^areagainst sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific^{circumstanceswarranting} the invocation of the provision must be present. The^{decisionrenderedbythe} Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v.^{Bhajanlalandothers^} is considered as the guiding torch in the application^{ofSection482.Atparas} 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

¶49

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the^{variousrelevantprovisionsof} the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of^{lawenunciatedbythis} Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under^{Section482oftheCode} which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein^{suchpowercouldbe} exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible^tolaydownany precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised^{andinflexibleguidelinesor} rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad^{kindsofcaseswherein} such power should be exercised.

¶50

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value^{andacceptedIntheir} entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence^ormake out a case against the accused.

¶51

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials. If any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶52

AIR 1992 SC 604

¶53

¶54

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected ' in support of the same do not disclose the

¶55

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶56

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation IS permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶57

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedina against the accused.

¶58

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶59

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶60

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

¶61

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows;

¶62

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in quash the proceedings in C.C.No.930 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District for the offences

under Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1963 made under?

¶67

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the provision under Section 1 (4) of the Act and contended that according to the said provision the petitioner Institution has no obligation to register under the provisions of Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder.

¶68

For better appreciation, Section 1 (4) of the Act,^{isextractedhereunder:}

¶69

Short title, extent, commencement and application.-

¶70

(1) This Act may be called the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.

¶71

(4) It applies to every motor transport undertaking employing five or more motor transport workers

¶72

Provided that the state Government may, after giving^{notlessthantwo} months’ notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to any motor transport undertaking employing less than five motor transport workers.

¶73

However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the G.O.Ms.No.17 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Labour-ll) Department, dated 22.07.2018, wherein the Notification is extracted hereunder; “In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso^of sub-Section^4of Section 1 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (Central Act 27/1961) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No.10/1897), the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby rescinds the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1624, Home (Labour.II) Department, dated

¶74

¶75

11.10.1968 wherein the provisions of the said Act were^{madeapplicableto} Undertakings, employing less than five (05) Motor any Motor Transport Transport Workers in the State of Andhra Pradesh; thereby^{restoringthepre-} of the Act to every Motor Transport notification status of application Undertaking employing five (5) or more Motor Transport^{Workers,thesame} having been previously published in part-1 Extraordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.48, dated 12"" January, 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No.1, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab. II) Department, dated 10 January, 2018 as required under the said proviso to sub-section^{(4)ofSectionlofthe} said Act, 1961.

¶76

Pradesh 11. As per the above Notification, the Government of Andhra G.O.Ms.No.1624, dated 11.10.1968 rescinds the previous notification issued in notification status of application of the Act to every^Motor and restored the pre Transport Undertaking employing five (5) or more Motor Transport Workers, of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.48, published in part-1 Extraordinary issue G.O.Ms.No.1, Labour Employment Training and dated 12'" January, 2018 vide dated 10'" January, 2018 as required under the Factories (Lab.II) Department sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the said Act, 1961. said proviso to

¶77

the complaint discloses that the number of 12. In the instance case, even School, are only two (02) Motor Transport workers employed in the petitioner contended by the learned counsel for the numbers. Therefore, as rightly Assistant Labour Officer is not the complaint made by the petitioner against the petitioner vide C.C.No.930 of maintainable and the proceedings Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, 2017 on the file of the First liable to be quashed. Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District are

¶78

¶79

¶80

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.930 of 2017^onthe file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepaligudem, West Godavari District is hereby quashed.

¶81

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand

¶82

closed.

¶83

//true copy//

¶84

SD/- G. HELA NAIDU assistant registrar — SECTION OFFICER

¶85