( 1 ) ON the complaint of the second respondent-Labour Inspector, the petitioner has been prosecuted before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, at C. C. No. 20975 of 1997 for offences punishable under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 20 of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 ('act' for short ). The first order of the learned Magistrate in the matter of issuing summons to the petitioner-accused reads thus. " perused. Cognizance taken. Register the case and issue SS to accused by 25-8-1997". On the summons being served, when the petitioner-accused remained absent, the learned magistrate issued NBW. It was then that, on behalf of the petitioner-accused, his Counsel filed an application under Section 253 of the Cr. P. C. , praying for permission for the said learned counsel to plead guilty, on behalf of the petitioner-accused. The learned Magistrate, by the order impugned in this revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. , observed that, since NBW was pending against the accused, and since there was no provision to permit the Counsel to plead guilty on behalf of the accused, the Counsel be directed to keep the petitioner-accused present for further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document