STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. C K PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of nine acquittal appeals by the State arise out of the judgment and order dated 6-2-1990, passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Deesa wherein the respondent-accused who came to be tried for the alleged contravention of certain provisions under the Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961 read with Secs. 18 and 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, was ordered to be acquitted on the short ground of the complainant being absent when the cases were called out.

(2.) Mr. D. K. Trivedi, the learned P. P. while challenging the impugned orders of acquittal, with due respect to the trial Court, submitted that these days a tendency appears to be increasingly growing taking offences under the labour legislation too lightly and accordingly are more disposed of perfunctorily rather than deciding them on merits. The learned P. P. further submitted that in the instant cases also, the trial Court has not evinced the desired care while arbitrarily terminating the trials into premature acquittals. The learned P. P. submitted that in the beginning of the proceedings, long-rope was given to the accused as cases went on being adjourned from time to time and then all of a sudden, on the ground of the absence of the complainant, the accused came to be acquitted. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that on number of occasions, not only the accused had remained absent, but the first and foremost simple step like recording the plea of the accused could not be taken up for a year and ten months and thereafter also the trial dragged on for considerably long period. Such protracted trials are heart-breaking enough to anybody much less a complainant, who is a public servant and has to attend many other important public duties. On the basis of above submissions, Mr. Trivedi finally urged that the impugned orders of acquittal being patently illegal, arbitrary and unjust, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside with orders remanding the same to the trial Court.

(3.) As against the above, Mr. K. S. Zaveri, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that since the trial Court has fairly exercised its discretion under Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') in acquitting the accused, the same should not be lightly interfered with. He further submitted that if despite summons being issued to the complainant, he did not care either to remain personally present or make any arrangements to keep somebody from his office present before the Court seeking adjournment, then in that case, the trial Court certainly cannot be blamed for the acquittal. Mr. Zaveri, in reply to two affidavits filed by : (1) the learned A.P.P. in-charge of the cases before the trial Court; (2) the complainant, has submitted affidavit-in-reply of the respondent-accused countering the allegations made in those two affidavits. Mr. Zaveri further submitted that in identical matter, since this Court (Coram : K. G. Shah, J.) in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1983 decided on 17-11-1990 (State of Gujarat v. M/s. Unipal Plastic Industries), has confirmed the order of acquittal dismissing the State appeal, these appeals also should meet with the same fate and must be dismissed. Mr. Zaveri finally in the alternative also urged that offences by now having become quite old, even if these appeals were to be allowed, the same should not be remanded.