AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.L. Bhat, C.J.—These are applications filed u/s 401 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") seeking to quash proceedings before Executive Magistrate, Silchar, Cachar, Assam. They are filed in this Court because the Petitioners are residing in the State of Tripura. By way of abundant caution I, as the Chief Justice of this Court, directed that these cases be heard at Agartala Bench.
Separate proceedings have been initiated before the Executive Magistrate, Silchar, Cachar against the Petitioners in each of these cases alleging that they have contravened the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short "the Act") The Petitioners who received summons from the court of the Executive Magistrate have filed these petitions.
Section 26 of the Act states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, the inspector and no court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
Section 6 of the Code refers to various classes of Criminal courts, besides the High Courts and Court of sessions, as Judicial Magistrates of the first class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the second class and Executive Magistrates, Courts of Judicial Magistrates are dealt with in Section 11 of the Code. Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates are dealt with in Section 16. Executive Magistrates are dealt with in Section 20.
Section 3 of the Code lays down the rules of construction of references in the Code. Sub-sections (1) to (3) deal with the reference in the Code. Reference to Magistrate shall be construed unless the context otherwise requires, as reference to Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate. Under Sub-section (3) any reference to the court of Magistrate of first class or Magistrate of second class etc, shall be construed as reference to Judicial Magistrate of respective class. Sub-section (4) is attracted in the instant case. It lays down the rule regarding construction of references under any law other than the Code. Where the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relates to matters which involve the appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation of any decision which exposes any person to any punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation, inquiry or trial or would have the effect of sending him for trial before any court, they shall, subject to the provisions of the Code, be exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate. In relation to matters which are administrative or executive in nature, functions shall be exercised by an Executive Magistrate. Undoubtedly the proceedings initiated before the Executive Magistrate against the Petitioners are proceedings which can result in punishment and penalty to them. Therefore, the reference to "Magistrate, 1st Class in Section 26 of the Act must be construed as a reference to Judicial Magistrate of the 1st class. Offences, the cognizance of which is dealt with in Section 26 of the Act, are not cognizable by Executive Magistrates.
The Executive Magistrate, Silchar, Cachar, in these cases has no jurisdiction to take cognizance or issue summons. Therefore, the proceedings challenged in these petitions are quashed.
The revision petitions are allowed.