Rohit Typing Center (Rtc) Chakiya Rajroopur Prayagraj U.P Supreme Court of India Som Mittal vs Govt. Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2008 Author: H.K. Sema Bench: H.K. Sema, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 206 of 2008 U D G M E N T (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) NO. 1719 OF 2006) Delivered by: H.K. SEMA, J MARKANDEY KATJU, J H.K.SEMA,J. (1) Leave granted. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 1535 of 2006 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash cognizance of offence under Sections 25 and 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court III. (4) In View Of The Order That We Propose To Pass, It May Not Be Necessary To Recite The Entire Facts Leading To The Filing Of The Present Appeal. Suffice It To Say That An Unfortunate Incident Had Occurred On 13th December, 2005 In Which Late Smt. Pratibha Srikant Murthy Was Stated To Have Been Murdered On Her Way To Work From Her Residence. Pursuant To The Aforesaid Incident A Complaint Was Filed On 27th December, 2005 Against The Appellant Alleging Violation Of Sections 25 And 30(3) Of The Act Before The Metropolitan Magistrate. On 30th December, 2005, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under aforesaid sections of the Act. On 23rd March, 2006, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint and cognizance was filed before the High Court. The High Court, by its impugned order dated 28th March, 2006, dismissed the petition. Hence, the present appeal by special leave. (5) The High Court, by its impugned order, has altered the cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Section 25 read with Section 30(3) to that one under Section 25 read with Section 30(1) of the Act. The High Court was of the view that taking cognizance against the appellant cannot be found fault with and dismissed the petition. (6) It is noticed, therefore, that petition under Section 482 was filed at the threshold for quashing of the cognizance taken by the Magistrate. (7) Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has addressed us on merits of the case. He would contend that the appellant is a Managing Director and occupying the position of management and, therefore, he would be entitled for exemption under Section 3(h) of the Act. He would further contend that the appellant, being Managing Director of the company, would not be liable for prosecution under Section 25 read with Section 30(1) of the Act. (8) Per contra, Ms Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, contended that Chapter VIII of the Act deals with a penal provision. She would contend that the language, Whoever contravenesemployed in Section 30 of the Act would include the Managing Director.