VINOD DATTATRAY SAMEL Vs. RAVAJIBHAI M PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the original complainant. He has preferred the present appeal seeking to challenge an order of acquittal passed on the 25th of April, 1986 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 103/s of 1983. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original accused. Respondent No. 3 is the State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order the accused have been acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS in the trial Court were initiated on the basis of a private complaint which was filed in the Court on the 18th of July, 1983. It was the case of the prosecution, in short, that the complainant was a senior employee of M/s. Eastern Ceramics Limited, Goregaon, Bombay, drawing a salary of Rs. 1,550/- per month. Accused No. 1 was the Managing Director and accused No. 2 was the company Secretary of the said M/s. Eastern Ceramics Limited. The accused were not happy with the complainant because he was Secretary of the employees union. In the past i. e. , in the year 1979, the services of the complainant were terminated. The complainant filed a complaint against the company alleging unfair labour practice. The complainant succeeded and the company had to allow him to resume his duties.

(3.) AS far as the instant complaint is concerned the complainant alleged that on 16th of April, 1983 while he was on duty, P. W. 3 Madhukar Dadasheb Kadam, a personal Manager of the company, informed him that the accused No. 1 was demanding the resignation of the Complainant on the ground that the complainant was passing out confident of information and matters of the company to outsiders. The complainant was requested to resign and in case he did not, he would be dismissed from service. The complainant thereupon approached the accused No. 1 in his cabin. At that time Shri Kadam had accompanied him. Complainant asked accused No. 1, about the allegation which Shri Kadam had mentioned. Thereupon accused No. 1 confirmed the same and reiterated that the complainant had been passing out confidential matters of the company to outsiders and that the complainant could not be trusted and, therefore the complainant was liable for dismissal. Accused No. 1 told the complainant that since the complainant had put in 15 years of service the company would not dismiss him if he voluntary resigned. By an order, passed on the very day i. e. 16th of April, 1983 the accused No. 1 terminated the services of the complainant with immediate effect. According to the complainant, on that day when he came out of the Cabin of accused No. 1 many workers who had gathered, they were informed by Shri Kadam that the complainant was passing out confidential matters of the company to outsiders.