- (1.) THIS criminal leave to appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.02.2012, passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, District Kota (hereinafter 'the trial court) in criminal case No.39/2010.
(2.) THE case set up against the accused-respondents (hereinafter 'the accused') was that the accused while undertaking mining activities on the basis of a mining lease issued by the State Government were in contravention of notification dated 15.12.1979 issued by the Government of India under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1970') prohibiting employment of contract labour in removing overburden in the course of mining operation. It was stated by the prosecution that consequently the accused were liable for conviction under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1970 and punishable under Section 23 thereof. On the matter coming up before the trial court, the trial court found that for one, only the evidence of the Labour Enforcement Officer, one Giriraj Verma, as the complainant, had been led before it. In his evidence, it was not established that the establishment of the accused was one in respect of which under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government was the appropriate authority entailing it to also be the appropriate authority for the establishment of the accused under the Act of 1970. And in spite of several opportunities, no evidence of any other prosecution witnesses were brought on record to bring home the offence alleged. The trial court also noted that the documents filed along with the complaint and exhibited in the course of trial solely related to issue of notice for the alleged contravention under Section 10(1) of the Act 1970 to multiple member of accused and reply thereto of some of the accused. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges and required to be tried stating that the whole case set up against them was false and misdirected. On consideration of the oral evidence on record and documents filed in support thereof, the trial court found that the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt in view of the paucity of evidence for the prosecution to hold the accused guilty of an offence under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1970 and therefore liable to be acquitted.
(3.) AT the outset, the counsel for the appellant was queried by the court as to whether the notification dated 15.12.1979, contravention whereof was alleged for the prosecution of the accused, had been filed before the trial court. It is not in dispute that the very foundation of the criminal trial of the accused was the contravention of the notification dated 15.12.1979. Counsel for the appellant fairly admitted as is also apparent from the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2012 that the notification dated 15.12.1979 was not filed before the trial court; exhibited or proved, in the course of trial.;