STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMANBHAI R PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in acquitting the accused alleged to have committed the offences under the relevant provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder on the ground of the complainant remaining absent when the cases were called out, is illegal, erroneous and unjust calling for any interferrance by this Court ?" (2) "How indeed this discretion of acquitting the accused under Sec. 256 of the Code, particularly with reference to any of the social beneficial pieces of the Legislation is required to be exercised so as to prevent patent miscarriage of justice ?" These two are the leading questions arising for consideration in group of the present four acquittal appeals.

(2.) To state few relevant facts briefly, as far as they are necessary to decide the questions raised above, it may be stated that Mr. L. V. Jaradi, Factory Inspector, Vododra, when on 29-4-1987, visited 'Kanan Plastics', a factory of the respondent herein namely Shri Ramanbhai R. Pandya, situated at Vadodra, it was found that the same was working with two of its workers - namely, Jivanbhai Govindbhai and Ashokbhai Ishwarbhai alongwith other co-workers, were found busy in production work without any identification cards, which the respondent, as per the Rules, was under obligation to furnish them free-of-cost as prescribed in Form No. 36, and thereby had contravened Rules 110(A)(1) and (2) of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules') read with Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). On further inspection, it was also noticed that the respondent had contravened Rules 61(l)(d) and 61(6) of the Rules and Sec. 7 read with Sec. 92 of the Act by not getting thoroughly examined the pressure vessel of the air-compressor tank used by a competent person and also not producing its report in the prescribed Form No. 11 for perusal and verification when asked for by the Factory Inspector. On the basis of these facts, the Factory Inspector on 27-7-1987 filed four complaints before the learned J.M.F.C., Vadodra, against the occupier of the said factory for the contravention of the aforesaid Rules punishable under Sec. 92 of the Act. This came to be registered as Criminal Case Nos. 1359 of 1987 to 1362 of 1987, and the summons were made returnable on 17-8-1987. Thereafter, it appears that on 17-8-1987, as the complainant - Factory Inspector did not appear before the Court despite the fact that these cases were called out thrice, the learned Magistrate on the said short ground only, at once, acquitted the accused under Sec. 256 of the Code giving rise to the present group of four acquittal appeals challenging the impugned judgment and orders dated 17-8- 1987.

(3.) Mr. H. B. Antani, the learned Additional P.P. appearing for the appellant-State while challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, submitted that the same were ex-fade illegal being arbitrary, capricious and unjust and the same has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that to cursorily throw away such important cases under the beneficial Labour Legislation and that too on the first returnable date of the service of the summons, was not only illegal and unjust but the same was highly disgusting being offending to the very object and the spirit of the Act itself and verges on the side of unbecoming of a judicial officer. According to the learned A.P.P. no question as such could ever have arisen of acquitting the accused on the ground of complainant remaining absent more particularly in view of the fact that even the appearance and the plea of the accused were yet to be recorded. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that if the accused persons are permitted to be acquitted in chavaliar fashion like the one in the instant cases, the legislative objects under the social beneficial legislation and cause of justice would be seriously undermined. The learned A P.P. while severely lamenting upon such avoidable procedural lapses committed by learned Magistrate was at pains to submit that in number of such other cases, the accused persons were found being prematurely let-off, acquitted under Sec. 256 of the Code by some of the learned Magistrates either in undue haste or to score disposals labouring under some misconception of law without taking into consideration the relevant factors such as nature and seriousness of the offences, some genuine difficulties on the part of the complainant in not appearing before the Court on the date fixed for hearing and the resultant injustice to the genuinely aggrieved parties, namely, the workers, the beneficiaries under such social legislations. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that such an approach cannot be termed to be a judicial one as the premature acquittals like the one in the instant cases under Sec. 256 of the Code gives serious set-backs to the object and the spirit of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, and for that purpose, any other social beneficial legislation. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that in order to cry halt at once to such irresponsible display of cheap and quick disposal oriented casual approach of some of the learned Magistrates cutting at the very root of the labour justice occasioning serious failure of justice, some guidelines are required to be given to impress upon them to mend their ways in future. On the basis of these submissions, the learned A.P.P. finally urged that since the impugned judgment and orders being per se perverse and illegal, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside remanding them to the trial Court to be disposed of on merits according to law.