Pradeep Gidwani and Another vs The State of H.P. and Another

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the cognizance taken by the learned trial Court for purported offences committed by the Petitioners u/s 18 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'').

A number of submissions have been made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The primary objection is that the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance as it is barred by Section 22B of the ''Act''.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

It is trite that in case cognizance is barred by limitation or there is any other statutory bar which is invoked for continuation of proceedings, the learned trial Court has at least to apply its mind to this aspect before proceedings further with the case.

In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with direction that the learned trial Court shall determine as to whether cognizance of the complaint is barred by limitation or on any other ground as urged in this petition. It be treated as a preliminary point by the learned trial Court before preceding with the case any further recording evidence if so required. A direction is also issued that both the Petitioners herein shall be exempted from appearance on every date before the learned trial Court unless the presence is deemed to be absolutely imperative in accordance with law. I have gone through the order sheet and I find that the Petitioners are being summoned without their being any requirement. Petition is disposed of.

Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 31st August, 2011.