AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal, u/s 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the Judgmernt and order of acquittal dated 12.02.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vankaner, in Criminal Case No. 538 of 1995, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents ''accused from the charges levelled against them.
The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 28.4.1995 the complainant has visited the Gram Panchayat of Khijadia where he found that the Gram Panchayat has not kept the Presence Register and also not kept the Salary Register as well as register for paying overtime to its worker and thereby the accused have committed the breach of Rule 26(5), 26(1) and 25(2) of the Minimum Wages Act & the Rule and, therefore, complaint was filed against the respondents'' accused for the offence under Rule 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Vankaner,
To prove the case against the present respondent ''accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them by Judgment and order dated 12.02.1999 in above Criminal Case.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court the appellant ''State has preferred the present Appeal.
I have heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Jani on behalf of the appellant ''State and learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent - accused. I have also gone through the papers and also the Judgment and order of the trial Court. It has been contended by the learned APP that the complainant has visited the Grampanchayat on 28.4.1995 and the respondents'' acused were issued notices for giving plausible explanation, but no plausible explanation has been given by the accused. He has contended that the respondents have not produced the salary register or over time register for payment to its employees and it is the boundant duty of the respondents to submit the detailed information as asked for by the complainant. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.
At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Another, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.
Further, in the case of Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
From the above decisions, in 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 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.
Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even 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.
Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75 the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases, more picularly, Para-16 of the said decision.
Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy and Another,
Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant.
The trial court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has found that the prosecution has failed to establish that village Panchayat is coming within the jurisdiction and whether the provisions of Minimum Wages Act is applicable or not. The trial Court has also found that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the case. The trial Court has also found that in the schedule also the name of the respondents are not shown. The trial Court has found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has also found that there are serious lacunae in the evidence of the witnesses. Nothing is produced on record to rebut the concrete findings of the trial Court.
Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondent'' accused in the present Appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent'' accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case as alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.
In view of above the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 12.02.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate, Vankaner, in Criminal Case No. 538 of 1995 acquitting the respondents'' accused of the offences charged against them is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding may be sent back to the trial Court.