STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHOKHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order delivered by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad, [hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Magistrate'] dated 9/4/1999 in Criminal Cases No. 3494, 3495 and 3496 of 1993, whereby the present respondent accused came to be acquitted from the offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] read with rule 95 (1) of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'], the State of Gujarat preferred this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in nut -shell, is that Factor Inspector, Valsad Mr. KB Parekh, paid visit on 5/3/1993 in the factory of the respondent accused, named Hindustan Electro Platting, GIDC , Kapilpor, Navsari. That during the visit of Factory Inspector, certain irregularities were found. Three workers, named Shivkumar Bharati, Premabhai Rathod and Balubhai Morarbhai, were working in the factory. Upon inquiry by the Factory Inspector, those workers stated that they have not been given earned leave cards in accordance with Form No. 19 by the employer - accused. That thereby, the accused committed breach of rule 95(1) of the Rules punishable under section 92 of the Act. In connection with each worker, the Factory Inspector filed separate criminal complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17/5/1993. Perusing the record of three cases, it transpires that the learned Magistrate, with consent of both the parties, recorded common evidence and ultimately disposed of three cases by impugned common judgment.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate recorded the testimony of Factory Inspector Mr. Parekh at exh. 28. During the course of his deposition, certain documentary evidence was produced. No more witness was examined by the prosecution. After perusing the evidence on record and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offence charged against the accused. Ultimately, in all the three cases the respondent accused came to be acquitted. On behalf of the appellant State, Ld. APP Mr. Mengde argued that the learned Magistrate committed error in acquitting the respondent accused from the serious offence under the Act. That Factory Inspector is a Gazetted Officer. There was no reason to discard his testimony by the learned Magistrate. The deposition of the Factory Inspector is supported by documentary evidence. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the earned leave cards were not supplied to the three workers, which is a serious offence. That as a matter of fact, considering the documentary evidence, accused himself admitted the non -compliance and, therefore, subsequently he complied with the direction issued by the Factory Inspector, but thereby it cannot be said that the accused has not committed any breach of the Rules. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed in the aforesaid three criminal cases by the learned Magistrate, whereby the respondent accused came to be acquitted, be set aside by allowing these appeals and the respondent accused be punished for the commission of the offence under section 92 of the Act in accordance with law.