State of Gujarat vs Chhotabhai Kevalbhai Patel Nobar

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant. Though served, none has remained present for the respondent.

The appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 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 u/s 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Minimum Wages Act'').

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 u/s 22A 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 u/s 22A of the Payment of Wages Act.

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.

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.