STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MULRAJBHAI G UDESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated January 31, 1996 passed by the learned 4th Jt. JMFC, Baroda in Criminal Case No. 1329/1994, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 46 read with Sections 72 to 78 of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963, levelled against him. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that on June 16, 1994, the Factory Inspector Shri J.J. Vaghela has visited the Jayant Oil Mill, situated at GIDC, Makarpura, Vadodara where he found that, in all, 253 workers were working in the said factory. Earlier on March 9, 1994 when he had visited the said factory, 285 workers were found working in the said factory, but there was no facility of canteen-restaurant was made available by the respondent for the workers and therefore, the respondent has committed an offence under Section 46 of the Factories Act and Rules 72 to 78 of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963. Therefore, a complaint was filed before the Court which was given number as Criminal Case No. 1329/1994. The trial was initiated against the respondent. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 3 13 of Cr.P.C, and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges levelled against him by judgment and order dated January 31,1996. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Trial Court the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) It was contended by learned A.P.P. that the judgment and order of the Trial Court is against the provisions of law; the Trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned A.P.P. has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.

(3.) At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and Another AIR 2006 SC 3366 : (2006) 6 SCC 39 : (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1266, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 57 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under at p. 1280 of MLJ (Crl): "57. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below." Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415: (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 991, the Apex Court laid down the following principles at p. 1005 of MLJ (Crl):