AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal filed against an order of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem. The Labour Enforcement Officer filed a complaint u/s 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act for breach of rule 21 AA of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules 1950 alleging that the accused failed to file annual returns before the concerned authority.
The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused holding that he has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint as the offence was committed in Warangal town. He passed the following order :
"Although the accused pleaded guilty, but at this stage when I have gone through the charge sheet it is noticed that the place of offence is at Warrangal. So this court lacks jurisdiction. The accused is acquitted".
The learned Standing counsel for Central Government appearing for the appellant contended that if the lower court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the complaint, it ought to have returned the same for presentation to the proper court u/s 201 Cr.P.C. and it erred in acquitting the accused.
It is necessary for the purpose of this case to refer to section 201 Cr.P.C. which reads thus :-
"If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence,
a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect.
b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper court."
In this case, the complaint was in writing. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the court below ought to have returned it for presentation to proper court instead of acquitting the accused. Thus it violated the provisions of Section 201 Cr.P.C. The order of acquittal is accordingly set aside.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the court below is directed to return the complaint for presentation to proper court.
Appeal allowed.