Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 1981, decided on 4th July1981.
--S. 435/439 read with S. 561-A-Pakistan Dock Labourers Regu lations, 1948-Dock Labourers Act (XIX of 1934), SQ. 9, 25, 26. 27 (3), 28, 29, 39 & 61-Order showing 48 offences committed on account of violation of various sections of relevant law and cumu lative fine of Rs. 30,000 imposed-As to how much fine has been imposed for each offence and for violation of which Regulation not specifically mentioned in order-Status of person arrested from ship not determined by notified inspector or by trial Court in order two patent illegalities having been found in order, such order set aside in revision and fine already received ordered to be refunded to accused in circumstances.
Usman Ghani Rashid for Appellants.
Abdul Wall Makhdoom for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 4th July, 1983.
This is a revision application filed by the applicants against the order, dated 20th April. 1981 passed by the learned A. C. M. No XII, South, Karachi, convicting the applicants under various regulations of the Pakistan Dock Labourers Regulation, 1948 and under section 9 of the Dock Labourers Act, 1934 and imposed a cumulative fine of Rs. 30,000 for committing 48 offences at six places. I have beard Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Abdul Wali Makhdoom, learned counsel for the State.
2. Applicant No. 1 is a limited company carrying on business of stevedoring at the port of Karachi, applicant No. 2 is the Managing Director of applicant No. 1 company and applicant No. 3 is the foreman/ employee of applicant No. 1 company. Apparently six ships at Karachi Port, which were being serviced by applicant company, were inspected by respondent No. 2, Dock Labour Safety Officer. Government of Sind, in the company of the learned A. C. M. No. XII, South, Karachi and noticing some violations of the relevant regulations, an application was filed by the Dock Labour Safety Officer, who is the notified officer, under the Dock Labourers Act, 1934, before the learned Magistrate that an inspection had been carried out and the applicants were found using 42 untested and not certified tubs on the ships and thereby committed offences under sections 25, 26, 27 (3), 28, 29, 39 and 61 of the Pakistan Dock Labourers Act, 1934. This application is, dated 30th April, 1981. The following order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the same day
You were found using 42 untested tubs on six ships which are defective. Do you plead guilty I plead guilty. On his own plea of guilty the accused is convicted and sentenced to Rs. 30,000 only and/or to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000 (rupees thirty thousand only) for committing 48 offences at six places or in default to undergo six months' S. L"
At the time of inspection Nafis s/o Jarjis Ali was found to be present at the ships and Nafis was taken into custody and produced before the learned Magistrate and according to the order dated 20th April, 1981 Nafis pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. I find two patent illegalities in the impugned order, dated 20th April, 1981. Although 48 offences are alleged to have been committed on account of the violations of various sections and regulations of the relevant legal pro visions and a cumulative fine of Rs. 30,000 was imposed, it has not been specified as to how much fine has been imposed for each offence and for violation of which regulation. Secondly, the status of Nafis had neither been determined by the notified inspector nor by the learned Magistrate. Neither the application 20th April, 1981 of the notified inspector nor the order of the learned Magistrate throws any light on the capacity, position or status of Nafis. Both the application and order are silent in this regard. Under the Regulation of 1948 the responsibility of Nafis should have been determined and as observed earlier, neither the application of the notified inspector nor the impugned order has made any reference about the responsibility of Nafis under the Regulations of 1948.
3. In the circumstances, this revision application succeeds and the impugned order, dated 20th April. 1981 is set aside. The fine, if already recovered, will be refunded to the applicants.
M.Z.M. Revision accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer