Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by U.K. Das, Deputy Director (Safety) and Inspector Dock Safety, against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai dated 27th April 1995 acquitting the respondents of offences under the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and Regulations. The complaint alleged that on 2nd May 1990, while loading/unloading of a container was going on a ship berthed at Victoria Docks, one worker Manikam Velu met with an accidental death. The appellant contended that the respondents, who were stevedores, failed to take safety measures. However, the trial court acquitted them. In the High Court, the appellant was absent on several dates and the appeal was fixed for final hearing as a last chance. On the hearing date, none appeared for the appellant. The court, following the ratio in Bani Singh & Ors v. State of U.P., held that the appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution but must be decided on merits. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who argued that there was no evidence to establish that the respondents were responsible for the safety of the deceased worker. The court agreed and found no merit in the appeal, dismissing it and upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Non-prosecution - Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Court is not bound to adjourn the case but should dispose of appeal on merits and shall not dismiss the appeal simplicitor for non-prosecution - Held that the appeal must be heard on merits even in absence of appellant (Paras 3).
B) Dock Safety - Liability of Stevedores - Sections 14(2)(a) Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 read with Regulations 66(1), 73(1), 85(8)(a), 91(3), 117 and 7(4)(b) of Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1990 - Complaint alleged that stevedores failed to ensure safety of deceased worker who died accidentally while loading/unloading container - Held that from evidence on record there is nothing to establish that respondents were in any manner responsible for taking safety measures of deceased worker (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or must be decided on merits; whether the respondents were responsible for the safety of the deceased worker.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai dated 27th April 1995 is upheld.
Law Points
- Appeal not to be dismissed for non-prosecution but decided on merits
- Scope of Section 386 CrPC
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish responsibility of accused for safety measures
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (05) 97
Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1997
Mr. Deepak Thakre, APP for the State; Mr. Naresh Rathani, i/b Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for the Respondents
U.K. Das, Deputy Director (Safety) Inspector Dock Safety
1. Ardeshir Bomanji A Dubash, Managing Director, M/s. A.B. Cursetjee and Sons Pvt. Ltd; 2. M/s. A.B. Cursetjee and Sons Pvt. Ltd; 3. The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought conviction of respondents for offences under the Act and Regulations
Filing Reason
Respondents were acquitted by trial court for alleged failure to ensure safety of deceased worker
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted respondents on 27th April 1995
Issues
Whether the appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or must be decided on merits?
Whether the respondents were responsible for the safety of the deceased worker?
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents' counsel argued that from evidence on record there is nothing to establish that respondents were in any manner responsible for taking safety measures of deceased worker.
Ratio Decidendi
The court is not bound to adjourn the case but should dispose of appeal on merits and shall not dismiss the appeal simplicitor for non-prosecution. On merits, there was no evidence to establish that respondents were responsible for the safety of the deceased worker.
Judgment Excerpts
In view of ration laid down in the case of Bani Singh & Ors Vs State of U.P. appeal is duly heard as in this case considering scope of Section 386 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is laid down that Court is not bound to adjourn the case but should dispose of appeal on merits and shall not dismiss the Appeal simplicitor for non prosecution.
from the evidence on record there is nothing to establish that Respondents were in any manner responsible for taking safety measures of deceased worker who died on docks accidentally in an incident involved in present case.
Procedural History
Complaint filed by Inspector Dock Safety against respondents for offences under Dock Workers Act and Regulations. Trial court acquitted respondents on 27th April 1995. Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1997 in Bombay High Court. On 4th April 2017, appeal fixed for final hearing as last chance. On 8th May 2017, none appeared for appellant. Court heard respondents' counsel and dismissed appeal on merits.
Acts & Sections
- Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986: 14(2)(a)
- Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1990: 66(1), 73(1), 85(8)(a), 91(3), 117, 7(4)(b)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 386
