JUDGMENT - N.V. DABHOLKAR, J.:---The two criminal applications challenge the order regarding issuance of process against the respective petitioners as also the prosecutions by which they are prosecuted for contravention of section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the said Act). Since the prosecutions are challenged by common grounds, the applications are being heard together by mutual consent.

2. The petitioner in Application No. 627 of 1993 is Principal of College of Agricultural Banking, Pune (hereinafter, referred to as "CAB" for the sake of brevity), which is run by Reserve Bank of India for conducting the residential training programmes to its officers. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) on 2-1-1992 carried out the inspection of the said college and found that contract labours were engaged, 31 for catering establishment; 17 for watch-n-ward and cleaning and 9 for gardening. Show cause notice dated 12-1-1992 accompanied by inspection report served on the petitioner was replied vide communication dated 24-1-1992. Having found the reply that provisions of the Act are not applicable to be unsatisfactory, Criminal Case No. 901 of 1992 is filed against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shivaji Nagar, Pune.

The Reserve Bank of India and its Manager, who are petitioners in Criminal Application No. 3089 of 1993 are prosecuted by the Labour Enforcement Officer, vide Criminal Case No. 187 of 1993 registered in the Court of 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bhoiwada, Dadar, Bombay for having engaged 38 contract labourers, in its canteen at Central Office Building. This was pursuant to the inspection dated 5-3-1993 followed by the show cause notice dated 8-3-1993.

3. Both the applications, while praying to quash the proceedings, invite this Court to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also inherent powers as conferred by section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the lawyers have, therefore, relied upon number of cases, laying down the guidelines in such matters.

In A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 (State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal)1, the Honourable Apex Court has laid down certain categories of cases, by way of illustrations, wherein the High Court may exercise its powers under Article 226 or section 482 of the Code, either to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, it is also clarified that, it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae, wherein such power should be exercised. The Apex Court has also cautioned that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of the rare cases.

In view of the pleadings in the two applications, the petitioners appear to contend that the provisions of the said Act are not at all applicable to them. We are concerned with the following guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court:

"1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. .......................................

3. Where uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. .........................................

5. .........................................

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 fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document