Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Application No. 164 of 1979, decided on 27^thFebruary, 1980.

-----S. 561-A read with Dock Labour Act (XXIX of 1934), S. 3-Quash rnent of proceedings -Respondent filing complaint against applicants at time when he had no authority to act as Inspector under S, 3 of Dock Labour Act-Action taken by respondent, held, without juris diction and could not be made basis of any complaint-Complainant seeking adjournments for last 1 years without producing documents to show his appointment as Inspector-proceedings quashed, in cir cumstances.-[Complaint].

Muhammad Hanif Khan for Appellants.

Shoukat H. Zubaidi for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th February, 1980.

This is an application for quashment of a complaint filed on 24th October, 1977 by Dock Labour Safety Officer pending before the Magistrate Harbour, Karachi, wherein it was prayed that the accused therein named Pak Ocean Shipping Company Ltd. and Jan Wozaiakiewiez may be proceeded against under section 53 of Dock Labour Act, 1934 read with Regulation No. 5 of Pakistan Labourer Regulation, 1948.

There are two contentions by the learned counsel, one is that Mr. Khalil was not at: Inspector appointed by the Central Government under section 3 of Dock Labour Act, 1934 and he was merely a Dock Labour Safety Officer of Government of Sind. However Annexure F' dated 10th October, 1977 shows that Secretary, Government of Sind had appointed Mr. Khalil Ahmad as Inspector for the purpose of said section 3 of Pakistan Dock Labour Act, 1934 under the powers conferred by the Government of Pakistan Notification No. SRO-234 (K)/64, dated 14th March, 1964. The counsel submits that Mr. Khalil Ahmed, the complainant, was examined in Court on 29th May, 1978 and he did not produce the Annexure F' in his statement as the original was not with him and his cross-examination was reserved for production of letter of additional charge as Inspector and the case has been adjourned from different dates for the said purpose, but even up to date of 19th November, 1979 no notification was produced by the complainant and, therefore, the applicant had to approach to this High Court. He has produced certified true copy of the order sheets and the submission seems to be justified. I find that the respondent has been appearing in Court but the complainant has either been taking time for the production of document or absented himself from the Court, therefore, the proceedings have dragged on from May, 1978 till 19th November, 1979 only for the purpose of production of document by the complainant and his cross-examination by the accused. In all there have been 24 hearings during this 11 years period and it must have meant a great deal of harassment to the applicant. The failure to produce the notification of the appointment as Inspector for 1/2 years does lead to presume that there is no such notification in existence. Annexure F' is merely a photostat copy of an order by the Sind Government and one does not know under what authority that order has been made. Even this Annexure F' shows that Mr. Khalil Ahmad could have the authority of making inspection of either the ship, its gear or register only on 10th October, 1977 and not earlier as the notification did not have any retrospective effect, therefore, any action taken by Mr. Khalil Ahmad before 10th October, 1977 could not be regarded as legal as sections 4, 4-A and 4-B of Dock Labour Act, 1934 authorized only an Inspector appointed under section 3 of the said Act to make the inspection.

Since the complaint dated 24th April, 1977 shows that Mr. Khalil Ahmad had issued a notice on 25th September, 1977 and it was on the same date that a certificate had been produced before him and the same has been found to be deficient under Regulation 27(1) of Pakistan Regulation, 1948 and admittedly on 25th September, 1977 Mr. Khalil Ahmad did not have the authority to act as Inspector under section 3 of the said Act, therefore, whatever action Mr. Khalil took on 25^th September, 1977 was without jurisdiction and the same could not be made the basis of any complaint.

Mr. Shaukat Zubaidy appearing for the State has also pointed out that the learned Magistrate, Harbour has proceeded to record the deposition of complainant Khalil Ahmad without framing a charge as required under section 242. Cr. P. C. and without even recording the plea of the accused as required under section 243 of Cr. P. C. and therefore whatever has happened before the trial Court is of no legality.

Mr. Hanif has also pointed out that the complaint against the application was motivated on account of the fact that applicant No. 2 had lodged a complaint with Martial Law Authorities against Mr. Sultan Ahmad Khan the then Dock Labour Safety Officer, which complaint of applicant No. 2 was viewed with disfavour by the Dock Labour Department. That may or may not be so but the fact that the complainant has been taking adjournments for last 1 years without producing the document by which he had been appointed Inspector under section 3 is a strong circumstance which have persuaded me to quash these proceedings. The proceedings are therefore quashed.

Proceeding quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.