PADMANABH NARAYAN INAMDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is preferred against an order made on November 17, 1972 in Criminal Case No. 408/P of 1972 by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Bombay, rejecting the application for permission to withdraw the proceedings under Section 495(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The facts giving rise to it could be briefly summarised as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner before this Court Mr. P.N. Inamdar is the President of Bharat Barrel Employees' Union; respondent No. 2 Mr. L, B. Goenka is the Director of the Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company, whereas respondents Nos. 3 to 185 are the employees of the abovesaid company.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the trial, on August 29, 1972 the police prosecutor who was in charge of this case, made an application under Section 495 of the Criminal Procedure Code for withdrawing from the prosecution as provided by Section 494. The grounds which were pressed into service were mainly that the employees insisted on their earned wages and other legal dues from the management and they feared that their dues would not be paid because of their past experience, although the management tried to lay the blame on the shoulders of the employees. The company had not declared any date for payment in the notice. Thirdly, the earned wages were to the tune of Rs. 80,000 and although the deposit was made, the workers had received nothing because of the pending dispute. Another ground of considerable importance was that the State Government had recommended to the Central Government to take over the said concern and there was every likelihood of the Central Government acceding to such a request. The police prosecutor further submitted that but for the pressing economic demand and the consequent unemployment as a result of untimely closure such an unfortunate event would never have occurred. On emphasizing the poverty of the employees and their dependents it was alleged, if the case was allowed to be withdrawn, the workers could be utilised by the Government who was thinking of taking this factory under its control for increasing the production. Apparently the occurrences might have assumed the character of a riot, which should be viewed sympathetically in the larger interests of the society and State. The employees in their zeal to press their legitimate demands had no criminal intention whatsoever in committing any of these alleged offences. All the accused supported the withdrawal.