STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIJENDRA KANTILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order rendered by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1699 of 1996, Criminal Case No. 1700 of 1996 and Criminal Case No. 1701 of 1996, the appellants -State of Gujarat preferred these appeals under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.', for short).

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that the Factory Inspector -Manubhai Madhabhai inspected the establishment of the respondent -accused on dated 16.4.1996. During the course of his inspection, it was revealed that thirteen workers were working and the manufacturing process was undertaken with the help of electric power. It was also revealed that the establishment was not registered as Factory under the Factories Act, required license was not obtained, no prior required permission was obtained before using the premises as Factory, muster -roll of the workers was not maintained. It was alleged that thus, the respondent -accused committed breach of Section 6(1)(d), 4(1), 3(1) and 110(1) and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Against the respondent -accused, three criminal complaints came to be filed by the successor Factory Inspector Kalpeshkumar Manilal, which came to be registered as Criminal Case Nos. 1699 of 1996 to 1701 of 1996.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellants -State, learned APP Mr. Mengdey submitted that the trial Court erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record. That the Factory Inspector Kalpeshkumar Manilal, who is complainant presented the criminal complaints before the trial Court. It is true that the complainant Factory Inspector Kalpeshkumar Manilal did not visit the establishment of the accused, but, his predecessor Factory Inspector Manubhai Madhabhai visited the establishment of the accused on dated 16.4.1996. During the course of the visit of Factory Inspector Manubhai Madhabhai, certain irregularities were found out. The prosecution has examined the Factory Inspector Manubhai Madhabhai, and in his evidence, he categorically proved the charges levelled against the accused. The Factory Inspector is a public servant and independent witness. The learned trial Court should have relied upon his evidence and should not have discarded the same simply on the ground that the evidence is not corroborated by any other evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and therefore, all the three appeals may be allowed and the impugned common judgment and order rendered by the trial Court recording the acquittal of the respondent -accused be set -aside and the respondent -accused be appropriately sentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act in accordance with law.