Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 650 (PAT)

G. C. Bahuguna v. State Of Bihar

1999-07-27

S.K.KATRIAR

body1999
Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been preferred by the eight petitioners who are accused in the trial Court, challenging the validity of the impugned order of cognizance dated 7.4.1993, passed by Shri Ram Bhajan Pal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in case No. 206(C)/93, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 341, 342, 355 and 34 of the IPC, and summons have been issued against them to stand their trial. 2. The present dispute is between the members of the Union and the Representatives of the Management of Bata India Limited, engaged in manufacture of footwear. The complainant is a workman in the factory of Bata India Limited, situate at Bataganj, Police Station, Digha in the township of Patna, and claims to be the General Secretary of Bata Kamgar Union. According to the allegations levelled in the petition of complaint, the dispute related to the question of payment of bonus paid or payable in four instalments. After having paid the first three instalments @ 15%, the management decided that the payment of bonus for the whole year should be @ 9% and had decided to deduct the excess payment made earlier while making payment of the fourth and the final instalment. This had led to agitation amongst the employees of Bataganj Factory, who were engaging themselves in various kinds of protest within the factory premises as well as the factory gate. 2.1 According to further allegations on 4.2.1993 at about 11 a.m., Mr. R. Rizzo, Sr. Vice-President of Bata International Limited, Toronto, Canada had arrived in Bataganj factory for inspection. The complainant along with some of the fellow workmen had met Mr. Rizzo and handed over a memorandum to him whereafter the latter had left for their duties. After Mr. Rizzo had left at about 12 noon, Suresh Gogta, Personnel Manager, called the complainant for discussion regarding payment of bonus. Responding to the call, the complainant along with Suresh Prasad, Beer Keshri Ram and Badrul Zamma, fellow workmen, went to the chambers of the Personnel Manager where G.C. Bahuguna, Vijay Shankar Singh, M.K. Prasad, Janardan Singh, S.K. Sahay and R.K. Kuer were present. The complainant handed over a copy of the memorandum to G.C. Bahuguna also, who had torn it into pieces. The complainant handed over a copy of the memorandum to G.C. Bahuguna also, who had torn it into pieces. The complainant and his fellow workmen protested, upon which G.C. Bahuguna started abusing the complainant in anger, and strongly told the complainant that he had complained to the management against him as a result of which he had been taken to task. Sensing the gravity of the situation, the complainant and his fellow workmen wanted to leave the place but the accused persons started beating them which resulted in minor injury to the complainant. There was injury on the head of Suresh Prasad and Badrul Zama also sustained injury on his leg and the back. Vijay Shankar Singh threatened in abusive language that he will have them sent to jail. Suresh Gogta gave orders that the complainant and others should not be allowed to leave the chamber because they will create further problems among the workmen and were thus kept confined in the chamber up to 7.30 p.m. The news of confinement spread which infuriated the workmen. The management immediately called the police who chased the workmen with lathi blows on account of which two workmen sustained injuries. The police arrested Md. Munir Alam, Raghunath Singh and Ragho Sharan Singh on the spot. 2.2 According to the petition of complaint, the management lodged a false FIR against them and handed over the complainant and fellow workmen to the police, who were taken by the police to the Digha Police Station and remanded to custody. The complainant was released on bail on 26.2.1993, and went to Digha Police Station the following day to lodge the FIR who refused to act in the matter. Hence, the present petition of complaint on 4.3.1993. The same was registered as complaint case No. 206(C)/93 Lalji Rai V/s. G.C. Bahuguna, in the Court of learned CJM, Patna (An-nexure 2), who by his order dated 6.3.1993, transferred the case to the Court of Mr. R.D. Pal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, for action in accordance with law. By his order dated 7.4.1993, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 323, 341, 342, 355 and 34, IPC and summoned the petitioners herein to stand their trial in his Court. 3. R.D. Pal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, for action in accordance with law. By his order dated 7.4.1993, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 323, 341, 342, 355 and 34, IPC and summoned the petitioners herein to stand their trial in his Court. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is a counter-blast to the managements criminal case started against the complainant herein and others. Suresh Gogta, Personnel Manager of the Company (petitioner No. 4), had lodged an FIR with Digha Police Station on 24.2.1993, which was registered as Digha P.S. Case No. 45/93, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 342, 323, 109 and 504, IPC. The present complainant and his fellow workmen are accused in the said police case who were arrested on the spot and also released on bail on 26.2.1993. The complainant and seven fellow workmen were dismissed from service on 26.2.1993. In order to explode the said police case and also as a matter of vengeance, the complainant lodged the present complaint case. 3.1 Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 (the complainant), has submitted that the present complaint case is by no means a counter-blast to the aforesaid Digha Police Case No. 45/93. The complainant could not take action earlier because the police was in collusion with the rich and powerful management, who was dancing to their tune, and they were precluded from prompt action on account of their arrest on the spur of the moment. As soon as they were released on bail, they have without further delay filed the present complaint petition. 3.2 Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the present complaint case is undoubtedly a counter-blast to the aforesaid Digha, P.S. Case No. 45/93, in an effort to destroy the police case and also to satisfy their vengeance. I have been informed by counsel for the parties during the course of arguments that the eight accused-persons including the complainant were dismissed from service on 26.2.1993, which undoubtedly added to the growing anger and vengeance on the part of the workmen. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.2.1993 and the present complaint petition was filed on 4.3.1993. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.2.1993 and the present complaint petition was filed on 4.3.1993. The effort on the part of the complainant before this Court to explain the delay on account of the arrest of the complainant is unconvincing for the reason that the complainant and his fellow workmen were engaged in a joint venture of trade union activity against the management. Therefore, there can be no doubt that other office-bearers and fellow workmen who had taken active part were available to start the criminal case, had the workmen really been victims. The complainant and others were released on bail on 26.2.1993, and the hiatus between 27.2.1993 and 4.3.1993 lends sustenance to the submission of the petitioners. The delay is really gaping and unexplained. The genesis of both the cases is the same. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation in concluding that the present case, is a counter-blast to the said Digha P.S. Case No. 45/93. Accordingly, I hold that the present complaint case is not a genuine case, being a false and frivolous case against the management. 3.3 It is relevant to state at this stage that the present complainant challenged the validity of the order of cognizance and the prosecution started against him in the said Digha P.S. Case No. 45/93, by preferring Cr. Misc. No. 13009 of 1993 in this Court. The same has been dismissed by this Court, by judgment dated 27.7.1999. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the present complaint case is a mala fide prosecution and is based on a palpably false premise. He has invited my attention to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the bail application of the sight accused-persons (including the present complainant) in the aforesaid Digha P.S. Case No 45/93 (Annexure 6), which is set out hereinbelow : "5. That the fact is that the employees of Bata Company had placed their memorandum before the Director of the said company which caused annoyance resulting in lathi charge by the police on the employees by the police. 6. The several employees were injured such as the petitioner Suresh Prasad has received head injury." On the strength of the aforesaid statements, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this completely falsifies the allegations made in the present complaint where a fundamentally different version has been given. 6. The several employees were injured such as the petitioner Suresh Prasad has received head injury." On the strength of the aforesaid statements, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this completely falsifies the allegations made in the present complaint where a fundamentally different version has been given. Whereas the bail application of the accused-persons in the police case in substance states that the injuries to them were as a result of the lathi charge by the police, the substance of their allegations in the instant complaint petition is that the injuries to them were the result of beating by the present petitioners. As is manifest from page 4 of the bail application (Annexure 6), the same was filed on 26.2.1993, whereas the present complaint petition was filed on 4.3.1993. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 did not advance any argument at all in opposition to this submission. 4.1 I agree with contention of the petitioners that the version introduced in the present complaint petition, being a later version, is fundamentally different from the version in the bail application. Whereas the present complaint petition alleges use of abusive language and assault at the instance of the petitioners herein against opposite party No. 1 (the complainant) and the fellow workmen, the version of the latter in his own bail application of the same occurrence is to the effect that they were victims of lathi blows by the police. This aspect of the matter also lends weight to be submission of the petitioners that the present complaint case is a false one. 5. Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the impugned order of cognizance suffers from non-application of the mind. In his submission, the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason for passing the impugned order of cognizance summoning the petitioners for trial. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 submits in reply that it is manifest from a plain reading of the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has perused the complaint petition, the solemn affirmation, and the statement of witnesses, and then taken cognizance. 5.1 I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the petitioners on this score. The impugned order does not disclose non-application of the mind in passing the impugned order. The learned Magistrate taking cognizance is not required to record a detailed reasoned order. 5.1 I have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the petitioners on this score. The impugned order does not disclose non-application of the mind in passing the impugned order. The learned Magistrate taking cognizance is not required to record a detailed reasoned order. The impugned order should on the face of it disclose perusal of all the papers before him, i.e. taking into account all the relevant materials on record and exclusion of all the irrelevant materials. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioners is rejected. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed, the impugned order of cognizance dated 7.4.1993, passed by Shri Ram Bhajan Pal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in complaint case No. 206(C)/93, is hereby set aside, and the entire proceeding is quashed.