Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/505/1994 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 505 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
ILIAS
RMJANIBHAI - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
RC KODEKAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR DAXESH T DAVE for Opponent(s)
: 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 10/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 377 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for brevity)
challenging the order of conviction passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate Judge, Court No.4, Ahmedabad on 4th
December, 1993 in Criminal Case No.6247 of 1988 convicting the
appellant-original accused of the charges of commission of offence
punishable u/s. 92 of the Factories Act.
2. The
facts in brief leading to filing of the present appeal deserves to be
set out as under:
3. It
is the case of the prosecution that the complaint was filed by the
Factory Inspector against the respondent accused in connection
with the incident took place on 18.9.1988. The worker Chetaji Hirji
was working in the factory and at that time, his thumb of right hand
was come under the roll of mangles, which was in running condition
and he met with the accident and sustained injuries. Accordingly, the
complaint was filed against the respondent under the provisions of
Rule 54(1) (6)of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963.
4. Learned
trial Judge issued arrest warrant against the accused, as he did not
appear before the trail Court. During the course of trial, the
witness Viz. complainant himself, has been examined.
5. After
taking into consideration the facts on record, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.4, Ahmedabad vide judgment and
order dated 4th December, 1993 in Criminal Case No.6247 of
1988, was pleased to convict the accused present respondent and
sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, and in default, S.I. for 30
days.
6. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant
preferred present appeal.
7. Heard
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
8. Shri
R.C. Kodekar, learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge has
not considered the fact that from 1.12.1987, new amendment in the
Factories Act came into effect, whereby the penalty provisions under
the Act are made very stringent. He has read the provisions of the
Factories Act. He has argued that the accused has committed serious
offence, but the learned trial Judge has imposed sentence only to pay
the fine of Rs.1500/-, but this sentence is lesser, which has
resulted into miscarriage of justice. Learned trial Judge has taken
lenient view while imposing sentence, but it is not just and proper.
He has also contended that the learned Judge ought to have impose
minimum fine of Rs.5,000/-Therefore, the order passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate is required to be quashed and set aside.
9. This
Court has perused the records and proceedings of the Trial Court and
heard the learned counsel of the respective parties at length. On
perusal of the record and the submission made by both the learned
counsel, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Trial Court
does not suffer from any infirmity what so ever. The appellant has
failed in establishing that the decision of the Trial Court suffers
from any perversity. On the contrary the decision of the Trial Court
is just and proper and it is based upon the evidence and it is after
proper appreciation. It also appears that originally the appeal was
filed in the year 1988 and judgment was pronounced on 10.3.1993 and
today, after 7 years, learned APP is not in a position to convince
this Court that learned trial Judge has committed any error in
passing the judgment and order. The Trial Court has rightly come to
the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in establishing its
case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the order dated
4.12.1993 passed by the trial Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case
No.6247 of 1988 deserves to be confirmed.
10. In
view of the above observation, this Appeal is dismissed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 4.12.1993 passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No.4, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.6247 of 1988
is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. R & P to be sent
back to the trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
ynvyas
Top