1977 PLP 50 (PLC)

16. The learned Chairman examined one Nabi Mangi S. D. M. as Court Witness No. 1 who stated that during the course of meeting, which was held by him in his office, he received a telephonic message from Jamshoro Police Station informing him that employees and workers of Sandoz had gheraoed the Management. He states that on receipt of this message he concluded the meeting and rushed to the site where he alongwith one Nawab Hussain, D. S. P. reached at about 6‑45 p.m. and he took nearly 45 minutes in reach ing there as the intervening distance between his office and the Factory was 8 miles. When he reached there, he saw the S. H. O. Jamshoro already there. It was the S. H. O. who informed the C. W. 1 that workers had gheraoed the Management and that by the time C. W. 1 reached there, many of the work ers had already left. C. W. 1 was informed that Factory Manager (complain ant) was inn she office of P. W.

2. He, accompanied by the D. S. P. reached there. He says that he noticed about 8 to 10 workers still gheraoeing both of them. His statement is to the effect that the workers were in a state of consternation. The complainant informed him that the workers had gheraoed him and Administrative Officer because they wanted the re‑instatement of a lady worker whose services had been terminated.

17. C. W. 1 has mentioned the accused Saqlain H. Naqvi Latif Tanoli, Nabi Bux Chandyo, Siddique Rajar, M. Ashraf Sheikh by names and when asked by the learned Chairman as to the presence of the two accused persons (Hanif and Abrar) he answered that he was not very much sure of the presence of M. Hanif and Abrar in the office of the Administrative Officer.

18. It is apparent from the record that the number of accused persons can easily be divided into two categories viz. (1) office‑bearers and (2) non office‑bearers. So far as office‑bearer accused persons are concerned, their identification is not at all difficult while those belonging to the second cate gory in order to sustain any conviction/sentence require strict pros.

19. Now I deal with the case of each accused separately.

20. So far as Saqlain H. Naqvi accused No. 1) is concerned, there is con vincing evidence against the accused collecting the group of workers, making a demand that Miss Sweeda Khatoon be re‑instated, threatening the complainant with dire consequence and making objectionable speech. P.W.2 has identi fied him and his voice while he was making speech and raising slogans and threatening that the work was to be stopped altogether unless Miss Sweeda Khatoon was re‑instated. The P. W. 3 has also supported and corroborated the statement of P. W. 1 by saying that accused Saqlain entered her office and threatened that either they (accused persons) or she (Miss Amina Muhammadi) would remain in the Factory. She has also supported the statement of P. W. 1 so far as the militant mood of the accused Saqlain is concerned.

21. The evidence as against accused No. 2 (A. Latif Tanoli) is also of vital importance. Statement of P. W. 1 is fully corroborated to the extent of accused Tanoli entering into the room of the complainant, making demand for re‑instatement of Miss Sweeda Khatoon, threatening the P. W. 1 and using filthy language against him. His presence there is further testified by Deedar Hussain (P. W. 2) who says that it was accused No. 2 who informed his colleagues that Police was just likely to arrive and that they should disperse. Miss Amir a Muhammadi has stated that Latif Tanoli (accused No. 2) forced his entry into her office, ordered her to withdraw the termina tion order and threatened her with dire consequences if that was not done as was asked for by the said A. Latif Tanoli (accused No. 2). P. W. 5 (Muhammad Rafiq Rajput) has corroborated in unequivocal terms the coming over of Mr. A. Latif Tanoli in the room and asking tie "gheraoeing party" to disperse as the Police was likely to arrive.

22. The evidence as against Miss Zohra Paryal (accused No. 3) available is that P. W. L stated that she, accused No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 entered in the office of the complainant and demanded withdrawal of termination order of Miss Sweeda Khatoon and in case the P. W. 1 failed to do so, he was threatened with dire consequence. P. W. 3 has stated that she (accused No. 3) compelled her to withdraw the said termination order. Her presence in the group of workers is proved by M. M. Ahmed (P. W. 4) who says that she was one of the persons who "gheraoed" the P. W. 1 and P. W. 3.

23. As far as the allegations against Miss Tahira Sheikh (accused No. 4) are concerned, it would be noticed that although her name appears in the caption of the complaint at serial No. 4 and although the complainant has attributed overt‑act to all the accused persons in his preliminary statement yet the absence of the mention of the name of Miss Tahira Sheikh in his (complain ant's) detailed statement dated 18th June, 1975 is very conspicuous. In this statement of the complainant, he has mentioned all the accused persons by name but the name of accused Miss Tahira Sheikh is missing. The P. W. 1 has stated that Miss Tahira Sheikh was one of the 30 other girls who "gherao ed" office of Miss Amina Muhammadi but it is strange to note as to how the complainant came to know of this fact because at the time when Miss Amina Muhammadi was "gheraoed", the P. W. 1 was neither in the room of Miss Amina Muhammadi nor somewhere nearby. The P. W. 3 (Miss Amina Muhammadi) bag made an abortive attempt to involve Miss Tahira Sheikh in the case by saying that Miss Tahira Sheikh did raise objectionable slogans and used filthy language as against her but she is not corroborated at all in her statement by any of the other prosecution witnesses. P. W. 4 undoub tedly has shown her presence with the "gheraoeing" persons but does not attribute any overt‑act to her. Simply being present on the site of occurrence and without attributing any overt‑act on the accused s part, could not be a ground of conviction of an accused person and it would be very dangerous to convict an accused person on the sole testimony of a single witness, especially in a case of the present nature where the complainant himself has not mentioned her by name in his statement.

24. There is no evidence whatsoever against Abrar Ahmed (accused No. 5) excepting regarding his entry in the office of the complainant along with others forcibly and demanding re‑instatement of Miss Sweeda Khatoon and this statement is only of the P. W. 1 which remains uncorroborated throughout by the remaining four P. Ws.. Accordingly no charge is brought home against this accused person.

25. The prosecution evidence as against Nabi Bux Chandyo (accused No. 6) is to the effect of his entry into the complainant's office forcibly, intimi dating, coercing and threatening the Management, his participation in "gheraoe ing" the P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, saying the P. W. 3 to withdraw the letter of termination compelling Dr. Ahmed to leave the office of P. W. 3 and his saying that P. W. 4 was required by the Factory Manager to see the latter and when P. W. 4 wanted to verify this fact on Telephone, Nabi Bux Chandyo (accused No. 6) prevented him from doing so. But, as observed herein after, he has not been identified in a way to warrant a conviction. His name has been mentioned by P. Ws. undoubtedly, but no one has come forward to say that he is the alleged Nabi Bux Chandyo. And he certainly is not an A office‑bearer which could raise a presumption that he was known well to all the prosecution witnesses and his identification was therefore, not so strictly required to be proved.

26. Not even an iota of evidence has been brought on record against Siddique Rajar (accused No. 7) excepting that he is included in the list of all the accused persons in the statement of the complainant. None of the prosecution witnesses has mentioned his name anywhere.

27. Similarly nothing has been spoken or stated as against Muhammad Hanif (accused No. 8) by any of the prosecution witnesses excepting the uncorroborated statement of P. W. 1 regarding Hanif's entry into the complainant's office and demanding re‑instatement of Miss Sweeda Khatoon.

28. Likewise there is nothing on record against M. Ashraf Sheikh (accused No. 9) excepting the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 1, No other prosecution witness has mentioned him by name anywhere.

29. In this case, it is interesting to note that prosecution did not care to identify the accused persons who are alleged to be responsible for the felony. In a Factory where hundreds of workers are working, it is humanly impossible for the Management to personally know and identify all the workers. No prosecution witness has ever stated that he knew the accused persons person ally nor any P. W. has taken the trouble to state, while making statement before the Bench of the Commission, that the accused persons present in the Court, were responsible for the uncalled for acts alleged against them. 29‑A. The case of the office‑bearers of the Union, however, is on a different footing because, as, the office‑bearers normally come in usual contact with the Management therefore it is expected of the Management as well as the office‑bearers of the Union to know each other and therefore there is no probability, of any ambiguity in recognizing the office‑bearers. The prosecu tion, however, has partly failed in establishing the fact as to which of the two accused persons (Miss Tahira Sheikh and Abrar Ahmed) is the office‑bearer of the Union inasmuch as that in his complaint dated 22‑4‑1975 the complain ant, in para. 3 of the complaint has shown the following as office‑bearers: ‑ (a) Saqlain H. Naqvi ‑ Member, Working Committee. (b) A. Latif Tanoli ‑ General‑Secretary. (c) Miss Zohra Paryal ‑ President. (d) Abrar Ahmed. ‑ Finance. Secretary. While in his preliminary statement (in the end) dated 26.4‑1975, the complain ant has described accused Saqlain H. Naqvi, A. Latif, cvlis3 Zohra Paryal and Miss Tahira Sheikh as the office‑bearers thereby substituting the name of Abrar Ahmed (accused No. 5) mentioned by the complainant in the complaint, by the name of Miss Tahira Sheikh (accused No. 4) in his preliminary state ment. Had the prosecution submitted an authenticated list of office‑bearers, it would not have been difficult for the Bench to ascertain as to which of the accused was or not, an office‑bearer of the Union. Prosecution case is always to stand on its own legs and must be established beyond any shadow of doubt and as love does not thrive between the icy sheets so does not the Law of the Land come to the rescue of a non‑vigilant prosecutor.

30. As observed in the foregoing para, there has been no identification at all of the accused persons holding no office in the Union but not the same time it does not lie in the month of the accused who happen to be the office bearers that their identity was not fully disclosed. They being the office bearers are supposed to have been known to the Management and the prosecution witnesses and there could be no possibility of any mistake on behalf of the prosecution witness regarding their identification. Here, of course, arises a difficulty in the case of Miss Tahira (accused No. 4) and Abrar Ahmed (accused No. 5) who at different places have been shown as office‑bearers instead of each other. Not only there is no evidence against accused Nos. 4 and 5 but also their presence at the site could not be said to have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. In case, it is not proved as to which of the two accused persons is factually an office‑bearer, both of them on this score alone, deserve a benefit of doubt.

31. In view of the facts brought on record the theory advanced by and on behalf of the accused persons, that on Miss Sweeda Khatoon's fainting, they had assembled there and subsequently went to the rooms of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 to enquire about the termination of services of Miss Sweeda Khatoon, discussing pros and cons of the said termination and finding out ways and means for her re‑instatement, can not be accepted. "Gheraoe" intimidating, coercing and pressurising the Management is proved beyond every shadow of doubt so far as the office‑bearer participants in the commi ssion of these offences are concerned. The President, General Secretary and the Member, Working Committee, took an undue advantage of their position and are mainly responsible for the alleged upheaval. The others are simply camp‑followers and deserve, (if the case is proved against them), a lenient view.

32. I am bitterly constrained to say that complainant's statement and evidence of his witnesses is neither materially different nor contradictory and the prosecution story is duly supported by independent reliable witnesses and defence has hopelessly failed to smash the prosecution case in cross‑examina tion so far as accused Saqlain H. Naqvi, A. Latif Tanoli and Miss Zohra Paryal are concerned, and 1 feel that by awarding the conviction and sentence (which 1 am just likely to award) ends of justice would be met. I therefore, convict Saqlain H. Naqvi under Section 53 of I.R.O., 1969 for staging a gheraoe of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3, making provocative and objectionable speech, inciting workers for the stoppage of work which eventually resulted in cessa tion of work in the factory for 15 minutes, to one month S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo a sentence of 15 days, and A. Latif Tanoli for having gheraoed, intimidated, coerced and pressurised the Management to accept the illegal demand for re‑instatement of Miss Sweeda Khatoon to one month S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo a sentence of 15 days' S. I. Miss Zohra Paryal (accused No. 3) is convicted to a sentence till the rising of the Court. There is convincing evidence against her though, yet, while awarding sentence on her, the fact of her lady hood has been taken into consideration and a lenient view in the matter has been adopted, with a genuine hope that she would behave and conduct herself in a more dignified manner in future.

33. I also hereby direct that A. Latif Tanoli and Miss Zohra Paryal (General Secretary and President respectively) shall cease to hold he office as such officers and be disqualified from holding any office in any the Union during the term immediately following the term 9n which they so ceased to hold office.

34. The remaining accused persons, Tahira Sheikh, Abrar Ahmed, Siddique Rajar, M. Ashraf Sheikh, Nabi Bux Chandyo and M. Hanif are hereby acquitted.