Prosecution of corporate officers requires company involvement; statute of limitations must be honored, and specific allegations are essential for liability.

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

Introduction:

1. The petitioner, Shri Ramji Tewari, the Principal General Manager of the BSNL Telecom Factory has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , sought for the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Complaint Case No. C-185 of 2022, currently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. The petitioner is the sole accused, a fact that lies at the heart of this dispute.

2. The complaint, based on an inspection conducted by the Labour Enforcement Officer, Respondent No. 2, on August 19, 2021, alleged certain breaches of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter, "the Act"). The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, on January 25, 2022, and issued summons to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner's grievances are founded on three fundamental legal grounds, which, in his submission, render the entire prosecution a nullity:

The complaint is barred by limitation under Section 27 of the o Act.

The prosecution is legally untenable due to the non-joinder of o the principal offender, the company itself.

The allegations against him are vague and insufficient to o establish criminal liability.

4. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, forcefully argued that the order of cognizance is an egregious legal error. He pointed out that the three-month statutory period for taking cognizance, as prescribed by Section 27 of the Act, expired on November 19, 2021, while the order was passed on January 25, 2022. This inordinate delay, he contended, without any application for condonation, constitutes a jurisdictional bar and would be fatal for the prosecution.

5. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the prosecution is a fundamental violation of Section 25 of the Act, which, when read in conjunction with the landmark ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661, makes it clear that an individual cannot be prosecuted for a corporate offense unless the company is also arrayed as an accused.the company is a necessary party to the prosecution. The failure to arraign the company as an accused renders the entire proceeding against the individual petitioner legally untenable.

6. Finally, he highlighted the absence of specific allegations in the complaint, arguing that merely stating the petitioner is the "Principal Employer" is not enough to fix criminal liability, especially as he had joined the BSNL Telecom Factory only a few months prior to the inspection.

7. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, sought to defend the prosecution by asserting that the petitioner, as the Principal General Manager, holds direct responsibility for the factory's affairs as a "principal employer." He urged this Court to view the petitioner's objections as mere technicalities that should not impede the trial court's proceedings. He argued that the matter of vicarious liability and the evidence should be thrashed out during the trial.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels and have perused the material on record. The central question for my determination is: -

“Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are legally sustainable in light of the procedural and substantive objections raised?”

9. It is a we