TEXMACO LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These bunch of appeals have been preferred against the order dated 14.7.2005 whereby the learned ACMM dismissed the complaint of the complainant and acquitted the accused persons since the complainant and his counsel did not appear at 10 a.m. when the case was called. Learned ACMM observed that he had fixed the case for 10 a.m. but neither party was present and counsel were not adhering to the Court time generally lawyer do not appear before 11.30 a.m. The case was very old and it was made clear to the parties that the case shall be taken up at right 10 a.m., despite that parties did not appear.

(2.) A persual of record would show that the complaints were filed by the appellant company under section 630 of the Companies Act, a summary trial case, and the appellants have been fighting the case for the last 17 years. The respondent/accused employee of the appellant, have been in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the premises allotted by the appellant, for the last 21 years without paying any charges.

(3.) I consider that it was not proper for the learned ACMM to dismiss the complaint right at 10 a.m. This Court in Continental Papers Ltd. vs. Darshan Print Pack (P) Ltd. 2003 (102) DLT 18 had observed as under:-