STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DINESHBHAI MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of four Criminal Revision Applications is directed against the impugned judgment and order, dated, 12-7-1988, rendered in four different Criminal Cases, the same being Criminal Case Nos. 1158 to 1161 of 1985 respectively, by Mr. L.P Chauhan, learned JMFC, Rajkot, wherein the respondent-Dineshbhai Mehta, Manager of "Poly Drug Chem" Rajkot, who came to be tried for the alleged contravention of various rules under the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963, was ordered to be prematurely acquitted on the short ground that when the cases were called out, not only the complainant was absent but right from the day the complaint came to be filed, till the date impugned order was passed, he had not taken any care even to serve the summons upon the respondent.

(2.) While challenging the impugned order of acquittal, Mr.D.K Trivedi, the learned PP has carefully taken this Court through the Rojkam proceedings which clearly demonstrates that, but for the last date, that is to say 11-7-1988, when the respondent came to be prematurely acquitted, the complainant otherwise all throughout had remained present: Not only that but the said Rojkam proceedings further shows that all throughout the proceedings, the respondent was constantly absent because no summons was served upon him : Despite this Rojkam proceedings, it is indeed strange as to how the learned Magistrate could have taken an unwarranted exception and condemned the complainant on his remaining absent only for one day, when as stated above, in fact all throughout, he had remained present on about 40 occasions : Further, in a given case, for whatever reasons, if the complainant did remain careless in serving summons upon the respondent and/or attending the Court, the learned Magistrate in the First instance should have issued notice against such irresponsible complainant for not complying with or disobeying the orders of the Court, and in the second instance should have also tried to serve the summons with the aid of process serving agency. Now quite surprisingly, neither of these two appears to have been done by the learned Magistrate, which was otherwise an elementary duty to be performed by any learned Magistrate before dawning the complainant. Further, it would be indeed not out of place to observe that likewise, the learned PP, defending Advocate, Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses, even the learned Magistrate has a definite duty of his/her own and a role to play. He/She should be responsible enough to activate himself/herself to play a judicial role in a positive manner which may best subserve and bring about the real and substantial justice between the parties. The reason is, the proceedings before the Court is not a matter of Boxing Bout between the two competing boxers or a match between the players of the rival teams where the learned Magistrate can afford to play the role of more passive by-stander, referee or ah umpire. Rather, the learned Magistrate is something much more than that, and accordingly, he/she is required to play that role effectively enough to bring about the justice between parties. In fact, the day we are to accept that the learned Magistrate has to play a more role of a Referee or an Umpire, the justice would indeed vanish from the window and the Court-room would be reduced to mere Sports-room, in place of the Court-room which is otherwise believed to be temple of justice. In this view of the matter, it is only the judicial activism, and the pragmatic participation of the learned Magistrate which is the only guarantee to bring about the real and substantial justice; without which, the rest of the things could be a flop-show of justice; Turning to the facts and circumstances of the case, the attitude of the learned is quite shocking and stunning too in as much as the same prima-facie reflects the unbecomingness on her part.

(3.) Further still, if such type of cases like the present one or one wherein hardly only one or two witnesses are required to be examined, if they get unnecessarily delayed because of some indiscreet adjournments granted by the Court, and thereby with the passage of time, they become old (may be in a given case, the prosecution is guilty to some extent), however, at the sometime, the concerned learned Magistrate is also not less irresponsible for such protracted proceedings. While conducting trials, the learned Magistrate is certainly not powerless to secure presence of the accused and/or witnesses; as case may be, in view of the fact that he/she is adequately armed with a weapon of issuing summons, bailable warrants, and in case of necessity even the non-bailable warrants too, by virtue of the provision contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. Not to discharge one's duty on the one hand and then to place the blame entirely at the doors of the Complainant (may be the complainant is at fault), is something difficult to accept as the Courts are meant for doing justice and not to merely find fault with the complainant and/or surrender its will, image and power to the recalcitrant complainant and/or accused, and/or the witnesses ; Like any one in life, before condemning the other person, the introspection is very much necessary and that to this simple principle of life, neither any proceedings nor the learned Magistrate could claim any exception.