STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DINESHCHANDRA HARIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether any accused hopefully expecting that he would be let-off with the lighter sentence, and accordingly in the process while pleading guilty, he also cleverly puts forward some more facts and circumstances either by way of explaining away or justifying the alleged wrong committed by him in order to further influence the mental process of the learned Magistrate while awarding the sentence, then whether such composite plea of guilt and innocence could be said to be a 'plea of guilty' at all ? And if not, then whether by accepting such mixed-up pleas of guilt and innocence, blowing hot and cold, the trial Court can be permitted to shortcircuit the trial by straightway jumping to pass the order of conviction and sentence in utter disregard to the prosecution ?" These two are the material questions surfacing discussion in this matter calling for determination from this Court.

(2.) Few relevant facts : According to Mr. K. P. Nathwani, Factory Inspector, Rajkot, when he visited 'Jangleshwar Industries' at Morbi on 15-3-1988, it was found out that the working condition in respect of providing Latrines and Urinals for male and female workers were not in existence and thereby its partner - Dineshchandra Haribhai had contravened the provision contained in Sec. 19(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). Further, according to the Factory Inspector, on earlier occasion also, that is to say on 17-2- 1987, when his colleague Mr. D. A. Patel, Factory Inspector had inspected the very factory, it was found that the very same provision contained in Sec. 19(1) of the said Act was contravened and accordingly on the respondent coming to be tried in Criminal Case No. 888 of 1987, on his pleading guilty, was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100.00 only by an Order dated 10- 9-1987. Thus according to the Factory Inspector, since the present contravention of Sec. 19(1) of the Act was repeated within the span of two years, the offence stood punishable under Sec. 94 of the said Act which warrants imposition of enhanced penalty of minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. On the basis of these facts, the Factory Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent-accused under Sec. 19(1) read with Sec. 94 of the Act, before the learned Magistrate, Morbi. This came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 578 of 1988 wherein the respondent was served with summons and ordered to face the trial for the alleged offence before the Court.

(3.) On the respondent appearing before the Court he pleaded guilty by submitting a written purshis [Exh. 11] dated 8-2-1990, admitting therein that he was previously tried for the offence under Sec. 19(1) of the Act in Criminal Case No. 888 of 1987 wherein on pleading guilty on dated 10-9-1987 was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100.00 only. Further according to the respondent, when the complainant-Factory Inspector visited his factory, the Latrines and Urinals in question were ready but for the cement plaster which was not made, and before the same could be completed Factory Inspector visited the factory and that is how it is alleged that he had contravened the provisions contained in Sec. 19(1) of the Act. Further according to the respondent, now both the Latrines as well as Urinals have been duly plastered and completed, the statutory requirements under Sec. 19(1) were duly complied with. It is further stated by the respondent that his financial condition at the relevant time was not good and that he was having a small factory. The trial Court accepting the aforesaid account alongwith the plea of guilty convicted the respondent for the offence alleged against him and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500.00 only and in default, to undergo further S. I. for 30 days, giving rise to the present appeal.