STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SUBHASH S DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common questions arising for consideration in group of these 27 appeals for enhancement of the sentence pertain to the legality and propriety of Mass Plea Bargaining recorded by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the oral plea of guilty by accused. The grievance voiced by the Appellant-State is to the effect that though indisputably the cases under these appeals were warrant triable cases and supposed to be tried accordingly as per the procedure laid down in Ss. 244 to 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (for short - the Code) and further though the prosecution was entitled to prove the previous convictions of the accused in order to bring about the enhanced minimum punishment to be inflicted upon him in manners prescribed under S. 298 of the Code the learned Magistrate quite surprisingly circumventing the entire procedure has recorded the illegal pleas of guilty convicting and sentencing him to pay the nominal punishment of fine of Rs. 50.00 and i/d. S.I. for 15 days.

(2.) Now just at very outset of this judgment to indicate the answer (to the questions raised) which is going to follow in the due course it may be stated that the manner in which trials came to be trifled with is highly reprehensible and cannot be countenanced for a while. Accordingly the grievance made by the appellant-State is not only well founded but this court further regretfully feels that such perfunctory approach in conduct of trials make it impossible the enforcement of any legislations much less the beneficial legislation reducing the same to virtual nullity. Between the two types of violation of law viz. one under the substantive law which can be committed by any person and the other under the procedural law which can be committed by the courts the later one if not more at least is not less deplorable. It has been rightly observed by Frank R. Prassel in his book Criminal Law Justice and Society that substance and procedure are both essential to any legal system and must operate in close conjunction. Legal cause may be lost on failure of either substantive or procedural element. It will be simply too credulous to view such patent and gross blunders as ordinary simple judicial errors of judgments which can just be suitably taken care of and be set right in the course of the procedural hierarchy by way of appeals and revisions as they are far more objectionable warranting serious note to be taken at the administrative level calling for explanations and consequences if necessarily so justified. Inadvertent lapse because of less or lack of experience in the matter of procedure perhaps may justifiably be pardoned once a while but the transgression of the mandatory provisions pertaining to minimum inflexible punishment without justifiable circumstances is quite a serious thing to be ignored.

(3.) To state few relevant facts of the cases briefly the Factory Inspector - Mr. Y. N. Mehta when on 11-1-1990 at 6-15 p.m. visited Milton Private Ltd. - factory situated in Kandla Free Trade Zone at Gandhidham it was found that the work inside was going on and some workers as named in the complaint were on work. It was further found out that though the names of the 27 workers were duly mentioned in the register for adult workers maintained in Form No. 28 their presence were not shown by marking P. Not only that but the said workers were also found to be working contrary to the period of working hours duly notified on Form No. 14 maintained under the relevant provisions of the Factories Act 1943 (for short - the Act) and the Rules made thereunder. On the basis of these facts on 10 the Factory Inspector filed as many as 27 complaints for the alleged offences under Section 63 read with Section 94 of the Act before the learned J. M. F. C. Gandhidham against Shri Subhash S. Desai the Manager of the said Milton Private Ltd. After this came to be registered as Criminal Case Nos. 1384/90 to 1410/90 summons were issued against the respondent. Thereafter it appears that on the very first day i.e. On 16 the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and orally pleaded guilty. This was accepted and on the basis of the same the accused in each of the cases was separately ordered to be convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 and S.I. for three days. Thus aggrieved by the aforesaid grossly inadequate orders of sentences the appellant-State has prefer red present appeals for the enhancement of the sentences.