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
