STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANTIBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.4.1993 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 1992 whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 On 26.3.1990, the Factory Inspector, original complainant visited the factory of the accused, where he found that the accused had taken work from the workers for more than 9 hours. THErefore, complaint against the accused respondent was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City for certain breaches of certain provisions of the Factories Act punishable under Sections 54, 63, 55(1) and 56 of the Act. Said Criminal Cases were registered as Criminal Cases No.1795 of 1990 to 1842 of 1990 against the accused respondent. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after recording plea of the respondent accused, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.4, Ahmedabad City passed the judgment and order dated 30.11.1992, whereby the respondent accused was directed to undergo S.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for further 15 days. Against that order and judgment, the respondent accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.80 of 1992 before the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City. THE learned City Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, facts and circumstances of the case, acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him vide judgment and order 22.4.1993. 2.2 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the City Sessions Court the appellants - State as well as Factory Inspector have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. Learned City Sessions Judge has rightly considered the evidence and the complainant did not prove the case against the respondent accused about violation of the provisions of Factories Act and therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was rightly quashed and set aside. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the visit of Factory Inspector, is very doubtful and he further observed that with regard to the breach of Sections 54, 55(1), 56 and 63 of the Factories Act as all the breaches are alleged to have been committed during the said visit of the Factory Inspector on 26.3.1990 at 7:05 p.m. to the factory of the accused could not have been recorded. Even in the complaint, exact time is not mentioned of the so called visit. Therefore, after considering all the aspects relating to the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.