Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kashiram Bopche, was an employee of Jijamata Arts & Science Junior College, Buti Bori, Nagpur. He was dismissed from service and approached the School Tribunal for reinstatement. The Tribunal passed an ex parte order on 15 January 1999 directing the respondent, Ramesh Patil (Head Master), and others to reinstate the appellant with backwages. The respondent filed an appeal against that order. The appellant also filed a contempt application in the High Court, which was decided on 8 September 2000. Subsequently, the appellant filed a criminal complaint under Section 11(3) read with Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Employees Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act) against four accused, including the respondent, alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal's order. The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to this appeal by the complainant. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the respondent had not wilfully disobeyed the Tribunal's order; he had filed an appeal and there was no deliberate defiance. The court held that the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse, and therefore the acquittal did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378 Cr.P.C. - Appeal against acquittal - The complainant appealed against acquittal of the respondent for offence under M.E.P.S. Act. The High Court held that the trial court's finding of no wilful disobedience was plausible and not perverse, and thus the acquittal was upheld. (Paras 1-6)
B) Service Law - Wilful Disobedience - Sections 11(3) and 13(1) Maharashtra Employees Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 - The offence requires proof of wilful disobedience of the School Tribunal's order. The High Court found that the respondent had filed an appeal against the Tribunal's order and had not deliberately flouted it, hence no criminal liability. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offence under Section 11(3) read with Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Employees Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 was proper in the absence of proof of wilful disobedience of the School Tribunal's order.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 27 March 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur in S.C.C. No.514 of 2004 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- Criminal appeal dismissed
- Wilful disobedience required
- Mens rea essential
- M.E.P.S. Act Section 11(3) and 13(1) interpretation
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 144
Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2008
Shri. R.S. Rahangdale for the Appellant, Mrs. K.R. Deshpande for the Respondent
Kashiram s/o. Tiran Bopche
Ramesh s/o. Motiramji Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to quash and set aside the acquittal of the respondent and convict him under M.E.P.S. Act.
Filing Reason
Appellant alleged that respondent failed to comply with School Tribunal's order of reinstatement with backwages.
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted the respondent on 27 March 2008 in S.C.C. No.514 of 2004.
Issues
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or unreasonable.
Whether the respondent wilfully disobeyed the School Tribunal's order under M.E.P.S. Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the trial court's judgment was bad in law and the respondent ought not to have been acquitted.
Respondent contended that he had filed an appeal against the Tribunal's order and there was no wilful disobedience.
Ratio Decidendi
For an offence under Section 11(3) read with Section 13(1) of the M.E.P.S. Act, the prosecution must prove wilful disobedience of the School Tribunal's order. Mere non-compliance is not sufficient; there must be deliberate defiance. Since the respondent had filed an appeal and there was no evidence of wilful disobedience, the acquittal was proper.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur in S.C.C. No.514 of 2004.
The facts, briefly stated, are as under : That the complainant had lodged a complaint against four accused persons alleging that, when the complainant had approached the School Tribunal with a request to reinstate him in the school, the application was decided exparte in favour of the complainant on 15th January, 1999 whereby the accused were directed to reinstate the complainant with all backwages.
The respondent/accused had filed an appeal against the order of the School Tribunal and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent/accused had wilfully disobeyed the order of the School Tribunal.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.9, Nagpur (S.C.C. No.514 of 2004) against four accused for offence under Section 11(3) r/w Section 13(1) of M.E.P.S. Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent on 27 March 2008. The appellant then filed Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 13 July 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 378
- Maharashtra Employees Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act): 11(3), 13(1)
