V N SORAL Vs. MOHAN POONAMIA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions of law are involved in both these appeals, they are being disposed of by this single judgment.

(2.) THE relevant facts, in brief, are that two complaints under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act were filed by the complainant V. N. Soral against Mohan Poonamia and Prem Kishan on 11-1-1968. On 121-1968, after recording the statement of the complainant, notices were ordered to be issued to the accused persons. The final order was dated 7-5-1971. Since 12-1-1968, the complaints could not proceed on account of one reason or the other. On 7-5-1971, the complainant and his counsel were absent when the case was called for hearing. The accused persons were also absent. No witness on behalf of the complainant was present. The learned Magistrate, therefore dismissed both the complaints under Section 247, Cr. P. C. (old), and acquitted the accused-persons as these were summons trial cases. The complainants thereupon filed these appeals after obtaining the leave as envisaged under Section 417 (3), Criminal P. C.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the complainant-appellants that the learned trial Magistrate did not exercise the discretion judiciously in dismissing the complaints. It was also contended that in these summons trials, the statements of the accused persons had not been recorded under Section 242, Criminal P. C. , and under such circumstances, even if the complainant was absent there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to have dismissed the complaints under Section 247, Cr. P. C. It was, thus, contended that the discretion so vested in the trial Court has been used capriciously, and not in a judicial manner.