STATE OF KERALA Vs. MARY C NIDHIRI CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case was convicted by the District Magistrate, Ernakulam of an offence punishable under S.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. On appeal, she was acquitted by the Sessions Court on the ground that there was no proper complaint in accordance with S.34 (1) of the Act and that, since the absence of such a complaint was a bar to cognizance, the entire proceedings against the accused were without jurisdiction and therefore void. The Public Prosecutor has presented this appeal against that acquittal under S.417 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) I might observe at the outset that, if the trial itself was without jurisdiction, there could be no acquittal properly speaking, and that the order of the Sessions Court really amounts only to a discharge of the accused from the case, the use of the word, acquittal by the learned Judge being a mistake. But, since the learned Judge has purported to acquit the accused, though in fact there could be no acquittal, I should think the provisions of S.417 of the Criminal Procedure Code are attracted. Even if they are not, I can still act under S.439, and if I think it proper, restore the judgment of the District Magistrate notwithstanding the restriction in sub-s.(4) of S.439. The position seems to be this: If there is an acquittal, S.417 would apply and my power to record a conviction would be unquestionable. But if there is not, I would not, in restoring the judgment of the District Magistrate, be converting a finding of Acquittal into one of conviction.

(3.) It was not disputed before the appellate court, nor is it here, that the accused did, in fact, commit the offence alleged. All that is said is that, since there was no compliance with the requirements of S.34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the court had no jurisdiction to try the accused for the offence.