TAPAS KUMAR NAG Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in the Factory Case No. 01 of 2013, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, being the Occupier and Manager of the Factory, for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has taken a short point challenging the impugned order, submitting that the petitioners are not the Occupier and Manager of the Factory. It has been submitted that the Factory Inspector himself had, by a letter contained in Annexure -5 to the application in the matter of renewal of the license of the factory, had disclosed the position that there is no 'occupier' of the Factory in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that even the petitioner No. 2 was wrongly shown as Manager, even though he is not the Manager of the Factory. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.