STATE OF BIHAR Vs. AYODHYA SHARMA SUDHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by the State Govenment is directed against an order of acquittal under Section 247 of the Code passed by the Munsif Magistrate of Hazaribagh on the 17th May, 1967.

(2.) IT appears that the Superintendent of Labour. Hazaribagh, after receiving authority in this behalf from the State of Bihar filed a complaint against She respondents under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act for an offence under Section 24 read with Section 23-B of the same Act. The prosecution case was that while an industrial dispute between the workmen and the management of Indo Shahi Glass Company Ltd. was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the respondents had instigated the workmen and organised and participated in an illegal strike. Cognize ance of the offence was taken and the case was transferred to Mr. R.K. Sinha, Magistrate on the 12th October, 1965. Processes were issued and service return was awaited. The case was transferred to a Munsif Magistrate thereafter. After a few dates, the service reports of the summonses Issued were received. Their were served on two respondents only. They also did not appear. Bailable warrants of arrests were therefore, issued against all. The reports of such warrants were not received. Non-bailable warrants were then issued but there was no execution report even in respect of them. The case thus was adjourned from day to day awaiting the execution report of warrants of arrest until the 17th January 1967 when it was transferred to another Munsif Magistrate Sri S.D. Sharma. The learned Munsif Magistrate also issued fresh non-bailable warrants of arrest and directed processes under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code to be issued and fixed the 27th February, 1967 for appearance of the accused. On that date the accused were again absent and the execution report of the warrants and the service report of the processes aforesaid were not received. The Presiding Officer was on casual leave, and some other Magistrate acting for him directed reminder to be sent for the service reports and fixed the 5th April, 1967 for appearance of the accused. On the last date again the accused were absent and the service re-Ports had not been received. Again an order was passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate to send an urgent reminder for the same and he fixed 17th May, 1967 for appearance of the accused. On that date again the accused were absent and the service report had not been received. The order-sheet however shows that the complainant also was absent on that date and no nairvi was made on his behalf. For these two reasons he acquitted the accused under Section 247 of the Code, Hence this appeal.

(3.) SO far as. this case is concerned, there is no dispute that the procedure relating to summons case had to be adopted. It will, therefore, be appropriate to refer to the procedure prescribed under Chapter XX of the Code. Under Section 242 when the case appears or is brought before the Magistrate the particulars of offence have to be communicated to him and he is to be asked to show cause why he should not be convicted. Section 243 of the Code provides for conviction of the accused in case he admits having committed the offence and if he shows no sufficient cause against it. Section 244 provides the procedure for a case where no such admission is made and says that if the accused does not make such admission the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and then hear the accused and take such evidence as he produces. Section 245 provides for recording an order of acquittal where he is not satisfied with the evidence and pass sentence if he finds him guilty. We are not concerned with Section 246 of the Code for the purpose of this case.