P ABDUL WAJID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.No.11 of 2009 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore is the petitioner herein. THE prosecution has been launched against the petitioner herein, for an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 for the violation of the following provisions:

(2.) AT the time of inspection by the Inspector of Factories on 02.12.2008, he found that manufacturing process using power was going on with the engagement of 22 workers. The following violations were noted by the Inspector of Factories at the time of his inspection:

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the very initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is obnoxious and against law as he is neither the manager nor the owner of the premises which was inspected by the complainant viz., Inspector of Factories, Circle-II, Vellore on 01.12.2008. IT is also his contention that he was doing job work viz., tanning in the said premises and hence, he could not be expected to get the approval of the documents pointed out supra. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the owner of the premises had leased out the factory premises to a third party and it was the third party M/s.Sarfaraz Niaz & Co. who was running the factory on lease; that all those documents with the necessary approval would be available only with them or the owner of the premises and that prosecuting the petitioner for his inability to produce those documents would not be proper in law. Though there is no such clear stand taken by the petitioner in his reply to the notice of the Inspector of Factories and in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was not even an occupier of the factory and hence, he could not be prosecuted for any of the offences cited in the complaint.