The facts of the case, with brevity, are that on or about 22-4-1975, a complaint under section 53 read with section 16(1) (d) & (c) of I.R.O., 1969, signed by the complainant (Brigadier Riazul Karim Khan) against ten accused persons was received in the office of the commission alleging that the accused persons, and at their instance and instigation, other workers "gheraoed" Brigadier Riaazul Karim Khan (complainant) who happens to be the Factory Manager of Sandoz (Pakistan) Limited.
Jamsboro, Hyderabad, on 14th April, 1975. Simultaneously one, Miss Amina Mohammadi Head of the Quality Control Department of the said Factory was also "gheraoed" on the same day with a view to get accepted their demand viz re-instatement of one Miss. Sweeda Khatoon. Further, with a 'view to get the said illegal demand accepted, the accused persons confined them in a room and prevented them the use of phone and threatened them with dire consequences, to get their said demand accepted. Still further, at the incitment and instigation of the accused persons there was complete cessation of work in the Factory from 4-45 p.m. to 5-00 p.m. on the same day (14-4- 1975) which according to the prosecution, was done to intimidate and coerce the Management to accept their highly unreasonable demand.
2. After recording the preliminary statement of the complainant on 26-4-1975, the then learned Chairman was pleased to issue process to all the accused persons and on their putting in appearance before the learned Chairman, a formal charge on 16-5-1975 against all the accused persons was framed to which the said ten accused persons pleaded `not guilty'.
3. On 1b-6-1975, all the five prosecution witnesses namely (1) Brigadier Riazut Karim Khan (2) Mr. Deedar Hussain Qureshi, (3) Miss Amina Muhammadi (4) Mirza Mannawar Ahmed, and (5)
Mohammad Rafiq Rajput were examined who were subjected to detailed cross-examination by and on behalf of the accused persons. After having recorded the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded wherein they denied the allegations. Accordingly, the defence was called upon to adduce evidence on behalf of the accused persons. The accused persons examined only two witnesses viz. Habib Ahmed and Nasir-ul-Haq Ansari.
4. P.W.1, Brigadier Riazul Karim, stated that services of an employee (Miss Sweeda Khatoon) were terminated on 14-4-1.975. She was then on a probationary period for three months but as she did not prove up to the mark, her services were terminated. On the letter of termination having been delivered to her, other w6rkers were also informed about it whereupon Saqlaian H. Naqvi (accused No. 1) collected a group of workers and brought them to the house of the P. W. 1 who raised a demand that the said Miss Sweeda Khatoon be re-instated forthwith and in case, it was not done they threatened hiA1 with dire consequences. This entire incident, according to him. happened at about 4-00 p.m. the same day (14-4-1975). The P.W.1 tried to pacify them but to no avail. He then managed to slip away from his room and went to the Reception Hall. The accused persons followed him and "gheraoad" him and this "gheraoed", according to him, continued for about 60 minutes. The P. W. 1 could not inform the police and the local Administration as the workers would not allow the Telephone Operator to do so. He, however, after a short time managed to reach the office of the Administrative Officer (Deedar Hussain Qureshi) and on his arrival there both he and Deedar Hussain Qureshi were "gheraoed". During this period, filthy abuses were hurled on him and Deedar Hussain Qureshi. Despite his best efforts he could not dissuade the accused persons from upbraiding and reproaching both him and the said Deedar Hussain Qureshi. During this period the complainant, however, sent a message to the Jamsboro Police through one Mr. Amin Badil, Driver.
The Police reached the site at about 6-30 p.m and so did the S.D.M. who rescued the complainant and Deedar Hussain Qureshi from their clutches. Meanwhile, the complainant had learnt that Miss.
Amina Muhammadi, Head of Quality Control Department, who was responsible for conveying the orders of termination of the said Miss Sweeda Khatoon was also "gheraoed" When she was "gheraoed", Dr. M. M. Ahmed (Mirza Mannawar Ahmed P. W.4) was sitting with her. Both Miss Amina Muhammadi and Dr. M. M. Ahmed were kept under "gheraoed" by about 30 working girls, who were later on joined by other Several made workers. All this bad been none at the instigation anti incitement of all the accused persons to get their demand of re-instatement of the said Miss Sweeda Khatoon accepted and by "gheraoeing" then they tried to intimidate and coerce the Management.
5. In his preliminary statement, the complainant has stated that accused persons (i) Saqlain H.
Naqvi (accused No. 1), (2) A. Latif Tanoli (accused No. 2). (3) Miss Zohra Paryal (accused No. 3) and
(4) Miss Tabira Sheikh (accused No: 4) were the office-bearers while others were Members of the union.
6. After his preliminary statement on 26-4-1975, his detailed statement as P. W. 1, on 16-6-1975 was recorded. Tile complainant has almost repeated his earlier statement but with some details. It would be observed that in this preliminary statement he has used the word "workers", without specifying the names of the accused persons and without attributing overt-act tip each accused person separately. In his detailed statement on 18-6-1975 he, however, has mentioned all the names separately excepting the name of Miss Tahira Sheikh, which statement was recorded in the immediate presence of all the accused persons present in Court with their learned counsel.
7. Statement of (P. W. 2) (Deedar Hussain Qureshi) goes to support the statement of the complainant inasmuch as that he in his statement states that he identified the voice of Mr. Saqlain H. Naqvi (accused No. 1) who was raising a cry that Miss Sweeda Khatoon be re-instated. He further stated that slogans like "Management Murdabad" were also raised. He stated that at the place where he was sitting, he saw through the window that accused Saqlain H. Naqvi was making a speech to the effect that workers would not allow to quit and that the Management would be forced to withdraw the order of termination. Accused Saqlain H. Naqvi also said that workers would stop working till such time Miss Sweeda Khatoon was re-instated. He also heard cries and slogans of the type "turn out Miss Muhammadi", "she is a disgraceful girl" etc. Meanwhile the Factory Manager (P. W. 1) entered in his office. He has categorically excepted Miss Tahira Sheikh (accused No. 4) from being amongst those who gheraoed the P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and restricted their movements. He supports P. W. 1 so far as the time of one and a half hours are concerned. He managed to contact the gate office through intercom wherefrom he was informed that the workers had placed an embargo on the movements of the vehicles, as he wanted some one to go to inform the Police of the incident then occurring. One Amin Badil (a Driver) happened to come to his office and he asked the said Driver to rush to the Police Station. At about 6-45 p.m. the Police Party arrived alongwith S.D.M. He states that in the presence of the S.D.M. Saqlain H. Naqvi (accused No. 1) stated that although the action taken against Miss Sweeda Khatoon was not unlawful, yet they wanted her re-instatement.
8. Miss Amina Mohammadi (P. W. 3) stated that she had been working in the Factory since 1968 and that Miss Sweeda Khatoon was working ire her Section and as her work was not up to the mark, she reported to the office for termination of her services. On 14-4-1975, at about 4-30 p.m., the letter of termination of services of Miss Sweeda Khatoon was handed over to her. The same was duly signed by the Factory Manager (P. W. 1), which is marked as Annexure C/2. She stated that at the time when letter was made over to Miss Sweeda Khatoon one Mohammadi Rafiq Rajput was sitting in her office and that after a short while, Saqlain H. Naqvi (accused No. 1) entered her office, in a very angry mood and threatened that either the accused would remain in 11.e Factory. He also threatened that no work could continue unless Miss Sweeda Khatoon was re-instated. As soon as Saqlain left, other workers assembled outside her office and started abusing P. W. 3 and wire raising slogans of the type mentioned hereinbefore. After a abort-while about 25-30 female workers invaded the office of the P. W. 3 and surrounded her while she was sitting on her chair and compelled her to withdraw the letter qua termination of Miss Sweeda Khatoon. She further stated that she noticed certain male workers in corridor in front of her office and could name some of them who were A. Latif Tanoli (accused No. 2), Mohammad Hanif (accused No. 8), and Nabi Bux Chandyo (accused No. 6). A. Latif (accused No. 2), entered her office and ordered her to withdraw the letter of termination of Miss Sweeda Khatoon failing which (as Latif Tanoli told the P. W. 3) the P.
W.3 would not be allowed to work anywhere in Pakistan. Meanwhile one Rafiq Rajput was brought to the office of tie P. W. 3 and made to sit with her and also "gheraoea" in the same manner as she was, which gheraoe lasted for about one and a half hours i.e. up to 6-30 p.m. She further stated that one of the workers blurted out "let the girls settle the matter with the girl". At about 6-30 p.m. A.
Latif (accused No. 2) came in and informed those who had gheraoed the P. W. 3, to quit as the Police was just to arrive.
9. P. W. 4 (Dr. M. M. Ahmed) stated that at about 4-50 p.m. on 14-4-1.975, he heard a noise emanating from the first floor. Later the noise makers came downstairs and were raising slogans against Miss Amina Mohammadi. Accordingly, went to the room of Miss Amina Mohammadi to enquire about the whole affair. A short while thereafter many girls forcibly entered the room of Miss Amina Mohammadi and forced her to withdraw the letter of termination, which she had delivered to Miss Sweeda Khatoon. According to this P. W., they (P. W. 4 and P. W 3) were "gheraoed" by the said girls and which "gheraoe", later on was joined in by some male workers. This "gheraoe" lasted till 6-30 p.m. He identifies only two girls namely Miss Tahira Sheikh (accused No. 4, and Miss Zohra Paryal (accused No. 3), and one male worker, Nabi Bux Chandyo (accused No. 6) who were present there. He states that after about 10 minutes of this gheraoe, Nabi Bux Chandyo informed him that he was wanted by the Factory Manager (P. W. 1). In order to ascertain this factum P. W. 4 wanted to use the telephone but he was prevented to do so. Further he states that 2 male workers viz. Nabi Bux (accused No. 6) and Ali Akbar forced him to quit the room saying that this was a matter between the girls and let them decide it among themselves.
10. P. W. 5, Mohammed Rafiq Rajput, the last prosecution witness stated that Miss Sweeda Khatoon used to work under his supervision in the Quality Control Department. The letter of termination of Miss Sweeda Khatoon's services was made over by Miss Amine Muhammadi on 14.4-1475 at about 4-30 p.m. He states that when he was coming out of Miss Amina Muhammadi's room, he noticed Saqlain (accused No. 1) in the corridor and proceeding towards the room of Miss Amine Muhammadi. He went to his own room and after having reached there, he overheard noise emanating from that side. A short while after the entire staff of Quality Control Department assembled outside the room of Miss Amina Muhammadi raising slogans, ---Management Murdabad---, "re-instate Miss Sweeda Khatoon" and "resign Miss Muhammadi" etc. The processionists, thereafter proceeded towards the Reception Hall down stairs. After 5 minutes or so, be noticed a very big precession comprising of male and female workers entering in the room of Miss Amina Muhammadi. The precession passed in front of his room. At 6-00 p.m., about 20/25 girls entered the room of P. W. 4 and warned him that the P. W. 4 had committed a very sanguine act in terminating the services of Miss Sweeda Khatoon and threatened him (P. W. 4) that he would not be spared unless he withdrew the said termination order. and virtually ordered him to go to the room of Miss Amina Mohammadi they and force her to withdraw the said letter. On his hesitation in going, threatened him also with dire consequences. The P. W. 4 did go there but to see the "gheraoe" only and not for the purpose as the workers wanted him to do. He says that he informed Dr. M. M. Ahmed (P. W. 4) already there. This witness supports the statement of P. W. 4 in so far as two persons asking him (P. W. 4) to leave room, as the Factory Manager desired him to see, is concerned. He further supports the statement of the (P W. 4) in so far as the (P. W. 4) was prevented from using the Telephone in order to confirm as to whether he was really desired by the Factory Manager to see the latter. Meanwhile, be states, A. Latif Tanoli (Accused No. 2) come in and asked the workers to disperse because the Police was about to arrive and says that on bearing this, all the girls left, but, according to him, the uproar still continued and though, he went back to his room at 6-30 p.m. he, however, came downstairs at 8.30 p.m.
11. The defence, as observed earlier, has examined only two witnesses. The D. W. 1 being Habib Ahmed who is First Aid Incharge in the complainant Factory, stated that at about 4-55 p.m. on 14th April, 1975 he received a message on telephone from Miss Muhammadi to the effect that the condition of a girl was serious. On receipt of this information, he rushed to the site and found that Miss Sweeda Khatoon was fainted. She was administered First Aid and after five minutes or so, she regained consciousness. He. thereafter informed Miss Muhammadi about the condition of the girl and returned to his Department. He states that when be went to inform miss Muhammadi that the girl had recovered, he found two men sitting in her room but he could not identify them. At about 5:15 p.m. be closed the dispensary and left for his house. He denies to have seen any procession or a meeting being addressed by any one.
12. D. W. 2 (Nasir-ul-Hag Ansari) stated that about 10 persons work in the Quality Control Department and that he was a member of the Works Council and it was at about 4-45 p.m. that Miss Sweeda Khatoon was called by Miss Muhammadi in the latter's room. When Miss Sweeda returned back from the room of Miss Muhammadi, she was weeping and bursting into tears. He went to her in order to enquire about her shedding tears. Meanwhile she fell on the ground in an unconscious state. D. W. 2 and accused Saqlain went to Miss Muhammadi to inform her about the ailing condition of Miss Sweeda. On hearing this, Miss Muhammadi called the dispenser on Telephone. He says that when he returned, he found Miss Sweeda conscious while dispenser was also present there. She (Sweeda) then informed him that her services had been terminated.
Thereupon the D. W. 2 and accused Saqlain contacted the complainant who advised him to send their President and General Secretary of the Union. He further states that he and Saqlain accompanied the President and the General Secretary to the room of the Brigadier. The Brigadier (complainant) informed them that it was not obligatory to issue a notice to remove a probationer.
At about 6/6-30 p.m. the Police and S. D. M. arrived who told them (D. W. 2 and Saqlain) that they had reached the Factory on learning that certain workers had "gheraoed" the Management but they (accused Saqlain and D. W. 2) denied the allegation. They remained with the Brigadier from 5- 00 p.m. to 7-00 p.m. approximately discussing the re-instatement or otherwise of Miss Sweeda Khatoon where--after they left for their residence.
13. It transpires from the summary of evidence narrated above that the prologue to the entire affair is the termination order of the services of one Miss Sweeda Khatoon. The case of the prosecution is that the accused (a) gheraoed Brigadier Riazul Karim and Miss Amina Muhammadi and confined them in the room (b) were responsible for complete cessation of work for 15 minutes with a view to intimidate, coerce and pressurise the Management td accept then demand of re-instatement of the said Miss Sweeda Khatoon while the defence case is that on noticing Miss Sweeda Khatoon having fainted, the accused persons, alongwith other workers, assembled there, did go to the rooms of Miss Amina Muhammadi P. W. 3 and Brigadier Riazul Karim Khan but to enquire about termination of services of Miss Sweeda Khatoon and were in the two rooms of the said two P. Ws. (P.
W. t) and (P. W. 3) discussing the pros and cons of termination of the services of Miss 5weeda Khatoon and having discussions with them regarding her reinstate--ment. "Gheraoeing" and "coufining" them in a room is denied by them and so is the cessation of work for 15 minutes denied.
14. Before embarking upon discussion of the merits of the case, it is highly desirable that the preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commission be disposed off. On the day when arguments were being heard at Karachi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection that in view of section 13 (ii) of 1. R. O., 1969, the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Despite all his talents and capabilities and the experience which the learned counsel for the accused persons has in the legal profession, he seems to be totally oblivious and probably harbouring under a destitute of an utter unforgetfulness the provi--sions of section 22-A (8) (f), which are quite independent of the other provi--sions contained in the I.R.O., 1969. The objection, as such, holds no good and is hereby overruled.
15. From the perusal of the record it is clear that the then learned Chairman was pleased to order the discharge of accused No. 10 (Rashid A. Tanoli) on 30-7-1975 thereby leaving only 9 accused persons on record. It also transpires that although evidence has been attempted to be brought on record against the accused persons preventing the Management from using the Telephone on the day of occurrence yet no substance of charge regarding this, had been brought to the notice of the accused persons and therefore they can not be held answerable on this count. Assuming that they were so charged, even then there is no evidence on this point against the accused persons inasmuch as that the Telephone Operator (Mr. A. R. Baladi), though, cited as one of the prosecution witness in para. 43 of the complaint yet he was not examined at all, although he was the most natural witness of the incident of prevention of use of the Telephone.
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.