State Of A vs M/S. Udipt

State Of Assam Vs M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor

Case Details

Case Type	C R Case
Filing Number	410226/2017
Registration Number	130/2017
Filing Date	02-01-2018
Registration Date	19-12-2017

First Hearing Date	26th February 2018
Decision Date	24th July 2018
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	10-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia;
Nature of Disposal	Contested--Acquitted;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

State Of Assam, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Shillong, Addl. Charge Of Leo (C) Dibrugarh, An Show more..

;

Respondent Name

M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Oil Contractor, M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd Show more..

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

24-07-2018

DISTRICT: TINSUKIA IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS), TINSUKIA CR CASE NO: 130C/17 U/S 24 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 State - V- M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Sri. Sanjib Kakoty, M.D., M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Smti. Manisha Kakoty, Director .......Accused PRESENT: SRI. NAVNEET KASHYAP, LLM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, TINSUKIA ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE: Ld. APP Sri B. Kakati ADVOCATE FOR THE ACCUSED: Ld. Adv. Sri. Naresh Prasad OFFENCES EXPLAINED ON: 02/06/2018 EVIDENCE RECORDED ON: 20/07/2018 ARGUMENT HEARD ON: 24/07/2018 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 24/07//2018 JUDGEMENT AND ORDER 1) The prosecution case in brief is that on 13/12/2017 the complainant Sri. S. B. Das, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Shillong at Guwahati filed one complaint petition along with offence report against the accused M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Sri. Sanjib Kakoty, M.D., and M/S. Udipta Energy & -2- CR CASE NO: 130C/17 Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Smti. Manisha Kakoty, Director, before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia U/S 24 of Contract Labour (regulation and abolition) act 1970. 2) After perusing the complaint, the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia was pleased to register the case as C.R. Case No. 130c/2017 and sent the case record to the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Smti. Z Begum for disposal who issued summons to the accused persons. On 26/02/2018, the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia was pleased to withdraw the case from the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Smti. Z Begum and transfer the same to my Court for disposal. 3) On 28/05/2018, one petition being Ptn No 2434/18 was filed by the Ld. Advocate for the accused praying for allowing the accused persons to be represented by the Ld. Advocate Sri. Naresh Prasad and after hearing both sides, same was allowed. 4) On 02/06/2018 the offence u/s 24 of Contract Labour Act 1970 was read over and explained to the Ld. Advocate for the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5) In support of the case the prosecution side has examined one witness Sri. Samar Bijoy Das as PW1 and after that the Ld. Addl. P.P. submitted to close the further prosecution of the case and after hearing both sides, same was allowed. Statement of accused was dispensed with u/s 313 CrPC. 6) Points for discussion: Whether the accused M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Sri. Sanjib Kakoty, M.D., and M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Smti. Manisha Kakoty, Director contravened the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and thereby committed the offence u/s 24 Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act? DECISIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION 7) PW1 is Sri. Samar Bijoy Das. He has stated as follows: “On 13.12.2017 I was Labour Enforcement Officer at Guwahati. On 12.07.2017 I inspected Uddipta Energy and Equipment, Oil India contractor under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act 1970. During inspection I had identified certain irregularities viz. records and registers were not maintained, notice was not displayed, wages slip were not issued to the worker prior to reimbursement of wages and accordingly inspection report was issued to the party highlighting the irregularities with 15 days of time to rectify the irregularities. But since no rectification report was received -3- CR CASE NO: 130C/17 from the end of the offending party, the deputy chief Labour Commissioner Central accorded sanction to file prosecution u/s 22 and 25 of Contract Labour Act. Accordingly on 13/12/2017 I filed this case before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate Tinsukia. EXT 1 is the Complaint and EXT 1 (1) (2) are my signatures therein.” In his cross-examination, PW1 stated that the address of the establishment of M/S Uddipta Energy and Equipment Pvt Ltd is LBK Road, Sibsagar, Assam and as per the act, the inspection is to be carried out at the establishment of the accused but PW1 have not mentioned in the complaint application that he carried out any inspection at the establishment of the accused. PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that at the time of preparing his complaint he was in sound mind and health and the complaint application itself was prepared after the lapse of limitation period. PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the inspection report has not been submitted while filing this complaint case and there is no evidence on the record that any notice was served to the accused for filing his show cause. PW1 further admitted in his cross examination that no sanction letter has been annexed with the complaint and no documents regarding his inspection of the establishment of the accused and inspection carried thereon is in the record. PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that no photographs of the establishment were taken. PW1 has admitted in his cross- examination that in his complaint application, he mentioned that accused has submitted show cause but due to non-satisfactory compliance report the sanctioning authority granted sanction and the show cause of the accused is not available in the record. PW1 stated in his cross examination that there is nothing submitted along with the complaint petition which suggests that the records were produce before the sanctioning authority for granting sanction and there is no evidence on the record that the accused persons were carrying work under OIL India. PW1 denied the suggestion that no inspection was done by me on 12.07.2017 at the establishment of the accused and he submitted a false case against the accused to prosecute him. 8) The above is the evidence on record. It is seen from the evidence of PW1 that the address of the establishment of M/S Uddipta Energy and Equipment Pvt Ltd is LBK Road, Sibsagar, Assam and as per the act, the inspection is to be carried out at the establishment of the accused but PW1 have not mentioned in the complaint application that he carried out any inspection at the establishment of -4- CR CASE NO: 130C/17 the accused. PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that at the time of preparing his complaint he was in sound mind and health and the complaint application itself was prepared after the lapse of limitation period. PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the inspection report has not been submitted while filing this complaint case and there is no evidence on the record that any notice was served to the accused for filing his show cause. PW1 further admitted in his cross examination that no sanction letter has been annexed with the complaint and no documents regarding his inspection of the establishment of the accused and inspection carried thereon is in the record. 9) Thus, from the above discussion, it is seen that PW1 has not stated any incriminating material against accused persons M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Sri. Sanjib Kakoty, M.D., and M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Smti. Manisha Kakoty, Director. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In our present case as discussed above, after perusing the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In result, the accused M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Sri. Sanjib Kakoty, M.D., and M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Smti. Manisha Kakoty, Director are acquitted from offences u/s 24 Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act in this case and set at liberty forthwith. Order 10) Consequently, the accused person M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Sri. Sanjib Kakoty, M.D., and M/S. Udipta Energy & Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor, Rep. by Smti. Manisha Kakoty, Director are acquitted from offences u/s 24 Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act in this case and set at liberty forthwith. 11) The bail-bond of the accused persons are extended for a further period of 6 months from today as per provisions of Section 437A, CrPC. Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 24th day of July, 2018 at Tinsukia. (Sri. Navneet Kashyap) JMFC, Tinsukia APPENDIX (A)PROSECUTION EXHIBITS: EXT 1: COMPLAINT (B)DEFENCE EXHIBITS: Nil (C)PROSECUTION WITNESSES: (i) PW1- Sri. Samar Bijoy Das, informant (D)DEFENCE WITNESSES: NIL (Sri. Navneet Kashyap) JMFC, Tinsukia *************************

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case State Of Assam vs M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor is State Of Assam and 5 more.

The Respondent in case State Of Assam vs M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor is M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor and 2 more.

The case against M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractorwas filed on 02-01-2018 by State Of Assam.

The status of case State Of Assam against M/S. Udipta Energy And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Oil Contractor is Case Disposed.