Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/708/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 708 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
=================================================
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 & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
RATANSINH
RANCHHODBHAI BARIYA - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR JK SHAH, ADDL.
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS SNEHA A JOSHI for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 29/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is preferred challenging the order of the learned Sessions
Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2006.
2. It
emerges from the record that the complaint was preferred after the
complainant visited the premises of opponent accused on 30.5.2000 and
having found violation certain provisions of the Minimum Wages Act,
Criminal Case No.3256 of 2000 was filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, which resulted into conviction and fine. The
said order was challenged before the Sessions Court, Godhra in
Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2006 under Section 394 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which had set aside conviction and impugned order
is challenged in present revision.
3. On
having heard the learned APP and learned advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi and
on perusal of the material evidence and judgments of both the Courts
below, this Court is of the opinion that for the reasons to be
followed hereinafter, present revision application requires
dismissal.
3.1 First
and foremost, the learned APP is unable to point any aspect of
illegality or incorrectness in the order of Sessions Court during the
hearing of present revision application.
3.2 A
mere look at the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge go to
suggest that for want of requisite evidence, it has not been able to
sustain the order of the learned Magistrate. While discussing in
detail the order of the learned Magistrate. Learned Sessions Court
has correctly held that neither the statements of the labourers have
been recorded nor the witnesses have been examined to substantiate
the violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and
therefore, it was not feasible to conclude whether the minimum wages
had been paid to the labourer or not. From the cumulative facts and
evidence before the Court, it came to the conclusion that prosecution
failed to adduce requisite proof of the violation of the provision
of Minimum Wages Act and accordingly quashed order of conviction.
4. From
the submission sand the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that cogent and convincing reasons have
been given on the
order of the learned Sessions Judge while arriving at a just
decision, which does not call for any interference. Since, it cannot
be said that the findings arrived at are in any manner perverse or
contrary to the provisions of the law,this revision is dismissed
upholding the order of the Sessions Court. Amount paid by way of fine
be refunded to the accused. Rule is discharged.
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J. )
sudhir
Top