Find a Lawyer

Complaint No. 1 of 1982, decided on 22nd August, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑.Ss. 56 and 61 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 247‑Criminal proceedings under Ss. 56 and 61 of Industrial Relations Ordinance in progress‑Complainant proceeding abroad making application for suspension of proceedings till his return- Provision of S. 6 of Merchants Seamen (Litigation) Act, 1946, held, applicable to proceedings before Civil Court or Revenue Court and not Criminal Court‑Application for dismissal of complaint due to absence of complainant on 6 dates fixed for hearing, in circumstances, granted and accused acquitted‑‑Merchant Seamen (Litigation) Act (XXI of 1946), S. 6.

Rasheed for the Complainant.

Ashraf for Accused No. 2.

Accused No. 1 in person.

This order will dispose of application dated 10th July, 1982, moved under section 247, Cr. P. C. praying that the accused may be acquitted as the complainant had been absent being himself since 13th May, 1982.

Notice of the said application was given to the Representative of the complainant Mr. Rasheed, who filed objections.

I have heard both the parties, and have reached to the following conclusion.

The present complaint under sections 56 and 61 of the I. R. O., was filed by complainant Fazal Mahmood, against the present two accused. The cross‑examination of the complainant was in progress and the matter was fixed for 25th May, 1982 for further cross‑examination, when Mr. Rasheed submitted an application to the effect that complainant Mr. Fazal Mahmood had left Karachi, as he was required to sail on a ship, by Pakistan National Shipping Corporation with whom he was on roster engagement. It was prayed that the proceedings may be suspended till the return of the complainant and notice be issued to the Shipping Master in accordance with the provision of section 5 read with section 6 of the Merchant Seamen (Litigation) Act, 1946.

The learned counsel for accused No. 2, submitted that the provisions of the aforesaid Act apply only to civil proceedings and not to criminal cases. He submitted that subsection (B) of section 2 of the said Act defines the word Court' to be a civil or revenue Court. He submitted that it is nowhere mention in the said act that its provisions apply to criminal proceedings as well.

On the other hand, Mr. Rasheed, on behalf of the complainant relied on the term "any proceeding before the Court" as used in subsection (1) of section 5 of the said Act,

After considering the argument, F have come to the conclusion that the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the proceedings pending before civil or revenue Court and not the criminal Court. The complainant absented himself on 13th May, 1982, 25th May, 1982, 10th July, 1982, 19th July, 1982, 10th August, 1982, and still there is no indication that he would come back from overseas in near future.

In the circumstances I allow the present application and dismiss the complaint as a result of the continuous absence of the complainant. Both the accused are hereby acquitted and their bail bonds are cancelled.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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