Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/636/1990 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 636 of 1990
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
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
CHHOTABHAI
KEVALBHAI PATEL NOBAR, TAL.JAMBUSAR - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
MAULIK NANAVATI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 03/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(1) Heard
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant. Though
served, none has remained present for the respondent.
(2) The
appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal dated 14th
May,1990 passed by the Learned JMFC,Jambusar in Criminal Case No.1367
of 1986 acquitting the accused respondent hereinabove of the charge
of committing offence punishable under Section 22(A) of the Minimum
Wages Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Minimum Wages
Act ).
(3) The
original complainant, Labour Officer visited the farm of the accused
at Nobar on 5th July,1986. At that time, the farm Labour
Gordhanbhai Kalabhai Vaghri was present. The accused did not have
wage register, wage slip etc.. After intimating the accused in
respect of breach of Rule 22 (6)(A)(1) and 22 (6)(A)(2), the
complaint was filed under Section 22(A) of the Payment of Wages Act,
which came to be numbered as Criminal Case No.1367 of 1986. It so
happened that before lodging the complaint, the Labour Officer, who
was responsible for visiting the premises of the accused has been
transferred as it has reflected from the judgment impugned. The
complaint was lodged by his successor in office. The Court after
appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the
complaint had not been filed bonafide and after deprecating the
conduct of the concerned Labour Officer, acquitted the accused of the
charge of committing offence punishable under Section 22(A) of the
Payment of Wages Act.
(4) Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor could not controvert the fact as
recorded by the Court. He submitted that the Court has mainly
acquitted the accused on the ground of conduct evinced by the
complainant and this Court may pass appropriate order.
(5) This
Court has heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor. No one is
present for the accused-respondent. The fact remains to be noted
that the victim Labour has not been examined nor the prosecution has
bothered to indicate in any manner his say in the proceedings. The
Trial Court has recorded that the conduct of the Labour Officer who
had visited the farm premises of the accused had not been proper and
in asmuchas though he was transferred and he had handed over all the
records to the successor, who had filed the complaint. The two
documents namely Exh.35 and 36 came on record subsequently and the
Court has recorded finding that on account of Raval’s reluctance to
appear before the Court for being cross-examined, there was a strong
ground for raising suspicion against the guilt of the accused. Raval
happened to be the Labour Officer, who had visited the premises of
the accused and from whose custody, the aforesaid two documents
namely Exh.35 and 36 were produced before the Court. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the finding recorded
by the Court with regard to the original Labour Officer’s lack of
bonafide, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused, which in my
view at this stage is not required to be disturbed. The appeal,
therefore, is required to be dismissed and and accordingly dismissed.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,J.)
Vahid
Top