CR.A/369/1998 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 369 of 1998 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 KRISHNA ENGINEERING WORKS & 3 - Opponent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : Ms ARCHANA C. RAVAL Ld. APP for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SATYEN B RAWAL for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4. ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 13/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Appellate-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Case CR.A/369/1998 2/7 JUDGMENT No. 4089 of 1995 acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them. 2. Originally, the complainant who was serving as a Labour Officer at Surendranagar, has visited the place of the respondent – Institute on 6.6.1995. That as per the powers given to him under the Contract Labour (Control & Abolition) Act, 1970, he has carried out the search in the premises of the respondent Institute. He has interrogated the workers who were working at the place and has recorded the statements of the said workers. He has collected the details in a mode of information and filed the complaint against the respondents under sec. 7(1), 9(a) and 29(1) of the Contract Labour (Control & Abolition) Act, 1970 read with Rule 17(1) & 74 of the Contract Labour Rules, 1972. 3. The prosecution has examined the complainant Dilip Ganpatlal at Exh. 42 and produced the oral evidence. The prosecution has not produced any other oral evidence as well as documentary evidence just to prove its case. The trial court has verified the oral evidence of the complainant and has came to the conclusion that in light of the provisions of law, the prosecution was unable to prove alleged charges levelled against the respondents and they were acquitted from the charge levelled against them. Against that order of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred by the State. CR.A/369/1998 3/7 JUDGMENT 4. Heard Ms. Raval learned APP for the appellant – State and Mr. Satyen B. Raval learned advocate for the respondents. 5. From the prosecution case, it is admitted that the complainant has produced the oral evidence with a word that at the event of verification, more than 15 workers were found present at the place and the statements of the said workers were also recorded, but they were not examined before the trial court, yet, learned APP has firmly argued that looking to the figure of the workers present, the prosecution has covered all the ingredients of the said Act and accused – respondents can be punished for the said offence alleged against them. 6. Learned advocate for the respondents Mr. SB Raval has opposed the submissions made by learned APP. He has read the provisions and contended that when the figure is imposed by law in Sec. 4(a)(b), then, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that figure of the workers who were working at the place at the time of search and when the prosecution is unable to show the complete figure, then the said provision cannot be made applicable against the respondents. He has read the judgment of the trial court and argued that in the sister-concern of the respondent – Institute, there was a strike on the said date and agitation was going on by the labourers. It is also stated by the learned advocate for the respondents that when the basic provisions of CR.A/369/1998 4/7 JUDGMENT law is not established by the prosecution, then, charge cannot be framed against the present respondents. 7. I have gone through the reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial court. It appears that at the event of search of the place, there were about more than 15 workers were present and statements of that persons were also recorded by the complainant- Inspector, but that said maker of the statements was not examined by the prosecution. It is required for the prosecution to say that more than 10 or 20 workers were working at the place, then, some documentary evidence or oral evidence of a particular workers are required to be produced before the trial court. It is true that the Inspector is not a Police Inspector when he is making a statement before the trial court that during the search of the said place, he has recorded statements of the workers, then, it can be proved said averments of the statement through the production of the oral evidence of the said workers and the bar of the Evidence Act cannot come in the way of the prosecution. I have also gone through the judgment of the trial court, it is not necessary for this Court to repeat the whole evidence of the prosecution case in light of the decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417. It is noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the Appellate Court is agreed with the reasonings and opinion given by the trial court, then, re-discussion of the evidence CR.A/369/1998 5/7 JUDGMENT is not necessary. The Supreme Court has prescribed certain directions in the case of Chandrappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415, as under: “42. From the above decisions, it our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1)An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3)Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4)An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent CR.A/369/1998 6/7 JUDGMENT unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5)If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 8. All the above five points of the Supreme Court prescribed in the said case is read in light of the reasons given by the trial court in the criminal case this Court come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to examine certain persons who were present at the place and were cited as a workers. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, in the present appeal, the appellant has failed to convince this court. 9. It is settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re- write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this CR.A/369/1998 7/7 JUDGMENT appeal requires to be dismissed. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/