The main legal point established in the judgment is that a prosecution under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 can only be instituted with previous sanction and there must be a determination of the applicability of the Act to an entity before launching a prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside complaint/prosecution sought to be initiated by an Inspector under the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, against the applicants.

4. The applicants are the office bearers of Vidarbha Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which was a registered Trust under the erstwhile legislation of the State of Madhya Pradesh. This Trust was established at Nagpur, the then capital of Central Provinces and Berar State, for promoting cultural activities. In this regard, there were premises allotted to the Trust by the State Government, since 1956.

5. The material on record shows that on 4-11-2015, a person claiming to be president of Nagpur Gumasta Mandal sent a complaint to the concerned Authority under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, against the applicants. It was claimed that proper wages were not being paid to employees of the applicants and attendance registers were not being maintained and further that some of the employees had been forcibly removed from the employment. According to the applicants, in the year 2016 an inspection was carried out by an Inspector under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Inspector granted time of seven days to the applicants to make good alleged shortcomings. Thereafter, the applicants sought time and submitted a reply to the Inspector under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as also the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. In this reply dated 24-2-2016, the applicants stated the scope of their activities, asserting that the Trust could not be classified as an establishment under the provisions of the aforesaid legislation, particularly when employees were being paid only honorarium.

6. Thereafter, the Inspector under the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, initiated proceedings before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, (JMFC) Nagpur, bearing Criminal Complaint No. 6428 of 2016.

7. In this complaint/launching of prosecution, the Inspector claimed that the applicants had violated various provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. A perusal of the said complaint shows that the Inspector has proceeded on the basis that the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, would apply. It is at this stage that the applicants immediately filed writ petition before this Court. On 18-10-2016, the principal contention raised on behalf of the applicants was recorded and while issuing notice, this Court granted interim stay to further proceedings in the said Criminal Complaint No. 6428 of 2016 pending before the JMFC, Nagpur.

8. Thereafter, on 30-6-2017, this Court granted Rule and the interim stay order was continued.

9. Mr. Ghate, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that in the present case, the aforesaid criminal complaint lodged by the respondents deserved to be quashed at the outset, for the reason that there is no ascertainment of the fact as to whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, would apply to the applicants-Trust at all. It is submitted that the applicants had filed a detailed reply before the concerned Inspector and without any determination of the applicability of the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, the said criminal complaint stood registered against the applicants. It was submitted that the very initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, was stillborn because there was no determination as to whether under the provisions of the said Act, the Trust was covered under the definitions of “Establishment” or “Comm