STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. O P GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What indeed the 'Law' alone can do to help redress the grievances of the aggrieved ones for whom it is ordinarily or specially meant for and made to deliver justice, when unfortunately, the same itself, sometimes stand by-passed, ignored and thereby victimised by no less authorities than the law enforcing agencies themselves, namely the Executives and the Judiciary(c)(c)? For example, in the instant cases, the learned Magistrate himself, who because of his patent ignorance about the object of the Act and lack of social orientation and commitment to the cause and call-for social justice, acquitted the accused without any effective trial . . 1.1. It is quite known that ordinarily 'Law' is enacted with a view to regulate and govern the relation between person and person, person and the group of persons, between group of persons inter-se as well as between all these groups of persons and the State, for the redressal of the grievances and for getting justice. Over and above this ordinary law, there are certain statutes which are enacted with some social object to protect and enhance the social justice of those needy sections of the society like the labourers or working class who are just unequal to their rich and influential mighty opponents. Notwithstanding the existence of such laws on the statute-books, there are instances where one find it ('Law') as if often heard of complaining of being let-down more by its own enforcing agencies in its ultimate search and quest for the truth and justice, rather than any other else offenders. This very same grievance, in the instant cases, is found as if whispering into the ears of this Court clamouring for redressal and justice for the wrong done to it by the learned Magistrate. In the instant cases as can be seen from the discussion that follows that the social justice is as if has been deserted by no less an authority than the learned Magistrate himself where he is found to be in the dock and the 'aggrieved law' praying for the justice. The obvious question that would arise under such circumstances is 'whether any Court of law and justice can permit itself to-be so passive and unaccountable to any accused going unpunished by premature acquittal merely because of the alleged ground that the complainant was absent when the cases were called out ? The further material question that arises is 'whether such matters of vital labour importance can be permitted to be reduced into the game of mere technicalities and ' hide and seek' between the accused, witnesses, complainant, etc., etc., with the helping hands of the process serving agencies and that too before the very Court which has taken cognizance of the offence -to defeat the Justice ? If indeed it is the duty of every citizen to honour and observe the law of the land, and in the event of some default or violation being committed of the same, he is accountable for the same, is it also not the duly of the law enforcing agencies as well to enforce and implement the said Law 'in its true spirit' so that it reaches its desired cherished goal, and here to, in the event of any default or violation of the same, rendering themselves accountable ? It is not the duty of the learned Magistrate to see that the law passed by the Parliament is fully and effectively implemented so as to deliver the desired fruits to the people as intended to by it ? If indeed 'Law' was to write its own autobiography, the way in which it somehow gets huddled and muddled and ignored by persons and authorities around its enforcement, implementation and interpretation, none of us should ever raise our eye-brows in surprise if it concludes the final chapter with the figure of accusation more towards its enforcing agencies rather than ordinary citizen violating it . These are some of the most disturbing thoughts often arising these days causing grave concern and anxiety to us, as they are not only found to be challenging the very foundation of the existence of the 'Rule of Law' which indeed is a matter of pride, that being our basic culture under our Constitution, but even the wisdom and effectiveness of the labour legislation is often set at naught by premature acquittals, as the one recorded in the instant cases. The problems surfaced above are the matter for prime consideration in the judgment which follows hereinafter.

(2.) In order to understand and appreciate the aforesaid introductory observations and further to evaluate the alleged patent illegalities committed by the learned Magistrate in irresponsibility disposing of these cases, it is necessary first of all to refer to some of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the attending 'Rojkam' proceedings of the trial Court having bearing on the issues involved.

(3.) Few relevant facts : According to the complainant Mr. C. M. Bhatia, Factory Inspector, Ahmedabad, when he in company of other two Factory Inspectors, viz., Mr. K. K. Patel and Mr. V. B. Solanki on 23-2-1988 visited 'The Viramgam Textile Mills (NTC)' situated at Viram-gam of which the respondent - 0. P. Gohil was occupier, they came to know that on 21-2- 1988 at 7-05 hours a fatal accident had taken place in the said mill premises, as a result of which the pressure vessel in an air-compressor tank suddenly got exploded shattering into pieces one of which flung and bitted one Ibrahimbhai Ismailbhai at his work causing his death. On making further inquiries, it was also learnt that the respondent had contravened certain important provisions of the Rules 61 (1)(c)(i), 61(l)(d), 61(1)(6), 111 and 103(2) of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (for short 'Rules') punishable under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'Act'). On the basis of these facts, Factory Inspector Mr. C. M. Bhatia filed five criminal complaints before the learned J. M. F. C., Viramgam, which ultimately came to the registered as Criminal Cases Nos. 437 of 1988 to 441 of 1988 by issuing summons to the respondent making it returnable on 7-6-1988. Thereafter, all these cases as usual went on merrily adjourned from time to time till 14-12-1989 for about 18 months when even before recording the plea, the respondent came to be acquitted by the learned Magistrate principally on the ground of complainant remaining absent when the cases were called out and some other ancilliary grounds as stated under : (i) In these cases, right from 7-6-1988 summons to the accused have been issued (however) till 13-12-1989, the same have not been served upon him; (ii) throughout this period, the complainant has failed to give correct address of the accused to serve the summons upon him; (iii) That on behalf of the complainant, his clerk has remained present and stated that the complainant is absent but he has not given any report or filed reasons as to why he was absent; (iv) The learned Advocate appearing for the Management of 'Viramgam Textile Mills (NTC)' has submitted a purshis at Exh. 3 stating therein that the accused - 0. P Gohil has been dismised from service, w.e.f. 7-6-1988 and that he does not know anything about his whereabout for the purpose of giving address.