Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2013. Case: State of Goa Vs Abhay Kumar Agarwal and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mahesh Amonkar, Public Prosecutor and For Respondents: Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate and L. Raghunandan, Advocate |
| Judges | K. L. Wadane, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 378, 378(2), 378(4); Factories Act, 1948 - Section 92 |
| Judgement Date | February 26, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
K. L. Wadane, J.
1. Present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No. 14/FA/09/D dated 17/12/2009, by which the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint in default and the accused are acquitted. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The complainant - appellant lodged complaint against the respondents alleging that they are occupier and manager of M/s. Global Ispat Ltd., Cuncolim, Goa and they have committed an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.
3. After filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate issued the summons to the respondents and the same were duly served upon them. The notice was also issued to the complainant - appellant, which was duly served upon him, but the complainant - appellant failed to remain present in the Court on the date fixed for hearing. So also, the learned Public Prosecutor remained absent. Hence, the complaint was dismissed for default, therefore the present appeal.
4. I have heard the arguments of Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned senior Advocate for the respondents.
5. On scrutiny of the record and upon hearing both the advocates following points arise for my determination.
6. On perusal of the earlier orders it is seen that when the present appeal was presented before this Court, at that time there was certain delay in filing the appeal, hence delay was condoned as well as leave to appeal was granted keeping the question of maintainability open.
7. During the course of arguments the learned Public Prosecutor mostly relied upon the provisions of Rule 18 sub-rule 'c' of The Goa, Daman and Diu Factories Rules, 1985, which reads as follows;
18. Powers of Inspectors -
An Inspector shall, for the purpose of the execution of the Act, have power to do all or any of the following things, that is to say: -
(a)..
(b)..
(c) to prosecute, conduct or defend before a Court any complaint, or other proceedings arising under the Act or in discharge of his duties as an Inspector:
8. In addition of the above provisions the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Amonkar has relied upon the provisions of sub-section 4 of Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code and Shri Sardessai has relied upon the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as follows:
378. Appeal in case of acquittal -
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section...
To continue reading
Request your trial