Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. Heard Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.01.2011 passed by the A.C.J.M., Rajmahal, in connection with O.C.R. No.06 of 2011 for the alleged commission of offence under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1984 and the Rules, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal.

3. The case was registered alleging therein on a complaint filed by the complainant Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bhagalpur I/C of Pakur under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules alleging inter alia that the accused named therein engaged workers in providing unarmed security guards at Tata Indicom Tower, Duhwa and on inspection of the said establishment on 9.7.2010, a number of delinquencies on the part of the employer were detected with respect to which, an inspection report cum show cause notice as contained in letter no.26(111)/2010-PKR dated 20.10.2010 was sent to the petitioner through registered AD post for compliance, which remained non complied and accordingly it was prayed that the petitioner being the representative of the company should be prosecuted and after cognizance of offences be summoned to stand their trial under section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company M/s. Lineage Power India Private Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 by virtue of an agreement of supply of services entered into with the TTSL, Tata Teleservices Limited, provided operation and maintenance services to the various sites of the latter company in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand including the security services at the sites through its sub-contractor namely, G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. through an independent contract dated 1st day of October, 2008 extended from time to time, which arrangement of providing security services was terminated by TTSL, with effect from 20th Feb., 2010, and in support of that the e-mail dated 15th January, 2010 is annexed as Annexure-2 series. He submits that inspection was made on 9.7.2010 alleging that certain statutory provisions of the Act was not carried out and the case has been lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner at that time was not the employer and the employer was Tata Teleservices Limited and G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. He further submits that in view of sub-section 2(b) of Section 22(B) of the Act the complaint was required to be filed within six months however the same is filed belatedly and in that view of the matter the order taking cognizance is bad. He further submits that there is no averment in that complaint and the petitioner was looking into the affairs of the company in view of section 22 (C) of the Act and on that ground itself the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of "S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. versus Neeta Bhalla & Anr." 2005:INSC:432 : 2005 8 SCC 89. He further submits that M/s. Lineage Power India Private Limited has already informed by way of reply to the show cause on 04.11.2010 that M/s. Lineage Power India Private Limited is only taking care of maintenance and operations of the sites of Tata Wireless Info Private Limited. The security guards required at Tata Indicom Tower, Udhwa are provided by Tata Wireless Info Private Limited, Patna as per the contract between the security agency and Tata Wireless Info Private Limited. On these grounds, he submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.2 submits that the inspection was made on 9.7.2010 and cognizance was taken on 21.1.2011 and in that view of the matter it was within six months and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. He further submits that the statutory provisions have not been complied with and in that view of the matter the complaint case has been filed. He further submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. On these grounds, he submits that the petition is fit to be dismissed.

6. On the other hand also, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that on the complaint petition the learned court has taken the cognizance and there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

7. In view of the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the inspection was made on 9.7.2010 and the learned court has taken cognizance on 21.1.2011 which suggest that it was within six months of time. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not accepted by the Court. The Court further has gone through the provisions made in section 22(C) of the Act and for ready reference the said section is quoted here in below:

"22(C)-Offences by Companies-(1) If the person committing any offence under this Act is a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

8. Looking into the said section, it is crystal clear that the person who was in-charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of business are liable to be punished under the said Act. In the complaint case there is no averment that this petitioner was looking into the day to day affairs of the company and in that view of the matter the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of the judgment "SMS Pharmaceuticals"(supra). Further it is not disclosed in the complaint petition that in light of section 19 of the Minimum Wages Act that the persons who has lodged the complaint is authorized by the competent authority in view of that section of the Act. The cognizance is required to be taken in light of section 22(B) of the said Act on sanction by the authorized officer. There is no averment in the complaint that there is any sanction for filing the complaint.

9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and considering that there is no averment that the petitioner was the in-charge of the company and was looking after the day to day affairs of the company. Further there is no averment that the complainant was authorized to file the complaint and the sanction order is also not annexed with the complaint petition. The petitioner has already intimated about the termination of the contract as has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hereinabove. The Court comes to the conclusion that this is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

10. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with O.C.R. No.06 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal is quashed.

11. Cr.M.P. No. 2649 of 2012 is allowed and disposed of.

12. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.