JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Surabhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shweta Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Vikas Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in G.Case No.592 of 2009, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh including the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2009 whereby learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under section 23 and 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

3. The complaint was registered on the basis of a written complaint filed under section 23 and 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 by the O.P.No.2. The complainant is Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) at Hazaribagh. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant is appointed as Labour Enforcement Officer and has been appointed as an Inspector under section 28 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The complainant inspected the establishment of the accused at Office of Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, at Julu Park, Hazaribagh on 30.09.2009. It is alleged that the accused is the Principal employer contemplated under section 2(g) of the Act relating to establishment for civil construction and maintenance work and observed the above offences, which were committed by the accused and an inspection cum show cause notice dated 19.10.2009 was served on the accused person and his reply was not received till date. According to the complainant, the accused person is responsible for the violation of the Act and Rules. According to complainant the accused has committed the following offense:

(i) Non maintenance of Register of contractor in Form-XII Breach of Rules-74

(ii) Non display of notice Board in conspicuous place/ main entrance of the office, Breach of Rule 81(1)(i)

(iii) Non submission of commencement of work in Form-VIB to the Inspector of the Area, Breach of Rule 81(3), and

(iv) Employer has failed to obtain a certificate of Registration under CL(R&A) Act 1970, violation of section-7.

4. Ms. Surbhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was Sr. Divisional Manager of Life Insurance Corporation, Hazaribagh. She submits that he was not looking into the day to day affairs of the company. In view of section 25 of the Act, the person who is looking into the day to day affairs of the company can only be prosecuted. Further by way of elaborating her argument she submits that the company namely Life Insurance Corporation is not made accused and to buttress her argument she relied in the case of S.K. Alogh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2008) 5 SCC 662. Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is quoted below:

“19. As, admittedly, drafts were drawn in the name of the Company, even if the appellant was its Managing Director, he cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. If and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefor. In absence of any provision laid down under the statute, a Director of a Company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offense committed by the Company itself.”

5. She further submits that order taking cognizance is also in in accordance with law.

6. Mr. Vikas Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union of India –O.P.No.2 submits the violation is there and that is why the case has been registered and learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that in view of the status report the some of the defence witnesses have already been examined and accordingly this Court at this stage may not interfere with the cognizance order.

7. Ms.Shweta Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and the order taking cognizance is in accordance with law.

8. In view of the submissi