Bangalore District Court
M.Ramaiah vs B.C.Ganganna Gowda on 4 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 4th day of October 2018
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.507/2016
BETWEEN:-
APPELLANT/ M.Ramaiah,
S/o. Madaiah,
(COMPLAINANT -
Aged about 66 years,
IN LOWER COURT) :
House No.452, New Extension,
N.R.Mohalla,
Mysore-570 007.
(In Person)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS/ 1. B.C.Ganganna Gowda,
K.S.R.T.C.
(ACCUSED - IN Bengaluru Division,
LOWER COURT) : Shanthinagar, K.H.Road,
Central Division,
Bengaluru-56 0027.
2. P.B.Karambaiah,
Division Controlling Officer,
Mangalore Division,
Dakshina Kannada Dist.
(By Sri. B.L.Sanjev, Advocate)
2
Crl.A.No.507/2016
JUDG MENT
The appellant filed this Criminal Appeal U/s.372 of Cr.P.C.,
being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated
19.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.9600/2011 on the file of VI
A.C.M.M., Bengaluru(herein after referred as impugned judgment
and order) on his complaint U/s.29 of Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
( herein after referred as I.D.Act)
2. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per their
ranking before the trial court for the purpose of convenience and
for better appreciation of their contentions.
3. In the memorandum of appeal, appellant contended
that, impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is
not in accordance with the procedures laid U/s.17A, 18, 19, 29 of
I.D.Act. Further, prayed in the appeal that, as per the Reference
No.47/1997 and Reference No.83/1998 by the Prl.Labour Court,
direct the respondents to pay total amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the
appellant with interest @ 18% p.a. For the aforesaid reasons,
appellant prayed for interference by this court and to set aside
the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court.
3
Crl.A.No.507/2016
4. Along with memorandum of appeal, appellant
produced certified copy of impugned judgment and order of
acquittal.
5. In this case, appellant/M.Ramaiah is the complainant
in the trial court. He being the victim, is entitled to prefer an
appeal as per amended provisions U/s.372 of Cr.P.C., inserted
from 31.12.2009.
Section 372 of Cr.P.C., states as under;
"Provided that the victim shall have a
right to prefer an appeal against any
order passed by the Court acquitting the
accused or convicting for a lesser offence
or imposing inadequate compensation,
and such appeal shall lie to the Court to
which an appeal ordinarily lies against
the order of conviction of such Court."
Hence, appellant has got right to prefer this appeal.
6. Lower court Records were called for, for reference in
this appeal.
7. Perused the memo along with cop of the order
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in
Crl.A.No.105/2016 filed by the complainant.
4
Crl.A.No.507/2016
8. Despite several opportunities, none of the parties
submitted arguments. Hence, this case is posted for judgment.
9. Now, following are the points arising for
determination:-
1. Whether complainant proved beyond
reasonable doubt that, accused/
respondents have committed an offence
punishable U/s.29 of Industrial Dispute
Act 1947?
2. Whether in the light of evidence and
material brought before the court, trial
court is justified in acquitting
accused/respondents for the offence
punishable U/s.29 of Industrial Dispute
Act 1947?
3. Whether impugned judgment and order
of acquittal called for interference in this
appeal?
4. What Order?
10. It is answered for the aforesaid points as under:-
Point No.1: In Negative
Point No.2: In Affirmative
Point No.3: In Negative
Point No.4: As per final order below,
for the following:-
5
Crl.A.No.507/2016
REASONS
11. POINT NOs.1 to 3:- Perused the entire order
sheets, complaint filed by the complainant U/s.200 of Cr.P.C.,for
the offence punishable U/s.29 of Industrial Dispute Act 1947,
sworn statement of the complainant by way of affidavit, plea of
accusation of accused No.1 and 2, evidence of the Pw.1, his
cross-examination, evidence of Dw.1 and Dw.2 and their cross-
examination, ingredients of the exhibited documents for both
side,, answers given by the accused in the statement recorded
U/d.313 of Cr.P.C. Trial court followed the proper procedures
while conducting trial of criminal case filed on the basis of the
private complaint.
12. So for as appreciation of evidence is concerned, trial
court considered the evidence of complainant/Pw.1, ingredients of
the documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, evidence of Dw.1 and
Dw.2, and ingredients of exhibited documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.18.
to arrive for the conclusion, that the complainant has not proved
the offence punishable U/s. 29 of Industrial Dispute Act 1947
against the accused No.1 and 2. Section 29 of Industrial Dispute
Act 1947 states as follows;
6
Crl.A.No.507/2016
29. Penalty for breach of settlement or
award.- Any person who commits a
breach of any terms of any settlement
or award, which is binding on him
under this Act, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine, or
with both, and where the breach is a
continuing one, with a further fine
which may extend to two hundred
rupees for every day during which the
breach continues after the conviction
for the first and the court trying the
offence, if it fines the offender, may
direct that the whole or any part of the
fine realized from him shall be paid, by
way of compensation, to any person
who, in its opinion, has been injured by
such breach."
Evidence of Dw.1 and Dw.2, ingredients of Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.18, it is made clear that, as per the direction issued in the
award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Management made
payment of back wages to the complainant as well as complied
the directions for re-statement of the complainant. Documents
reveal that, compliance of the direction issued by the Principal
7
Crl.A.No.507/2016
Labour Court Tribunal was complied by the accused No.1 and 2
within the time prescribed as per I.D.Act.
13. Compared the allegations made in the memorandum
of appeal with the reasons assigned by the trial court in the
impugned judgment and order. Prayer of the appellant in this
appeal is to issue directions to the respondents to pay total sum
of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Such directions cannot
be issued in this appeal.
14. However, appellant is at liberty to approach the
Jurisdictional Labour Court, in the event he feel aggrieved that,
the compliance made by the accused No.1 and 2 is not in
accordance with the direction issued by the Principal Labour
Court under Reference No.46/1997 and Reference No.83/1998.
15. So far as ingredients of the offence punishable U/s.29
of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is concerned, complainant has to
prove that, the accused No.1 and 2 not complied the directions
issued under reference. Documents produced by accused in
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 established before the trial court that they
complied the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal in its
award. Hence, there is no illegality, infirmity or perverse in the
8
Crl.A.No.507/2016
impugned judgment and order of acquittal, as the accused
succeeded to establish their case to get benefit of doubt.
Compared the reasons assigned by the trial court with allegations
made in the memorandum of appeal. There is no merit in the
allegations made in the appeal. Complainant failed to prove his
case beyond reasonable doubt. Order under appeal is sustainable
in law. Hence, interference of this court is not necessitated.
Accordingly, points No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative
and point No.3 in the Negative.
16. POINT NO.4 :- In view of findings on the above
points No.1 to 3, this criminal appeal is devoid of merits and same
is liable to be dismissed by confirming impugned judgment and
acquittal. Hence, following order is made:
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal filed U/s.372 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.9600/2011 on the file of VI-A.C.M.M., Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.
9Crl.A.No.507/2016 Office is hereby directed to send back L.C.R. along with certified copy of Judgment, forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of October, 2018.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.