S.J. GHANDY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ application the entire criminal proceeding of C/2 case no.260 of 1999, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in which petitioners are being prosecuted under section 92 of the Factories Act has been sought to be quashed on the ground of acquittal of one of the co-accused, who along with these two petitioners had been alleged to have contravened the provision of Rule 56(c) and 56(c)(i)(d) of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950.

(2.) It appears that on 11.1.1999 when one of the workers accidentally died in the factory premises of TELCO, the then Manager Safety, TELCO informed to the Inspector of Factories about the incidence, upon which Inspector of Factories, respondent no.2 visited the place of occurrence and made enquiry and came to the conclusion that when on 11.1.1999 it was detected that pipeline of plant no.2 has been leaking and has caught fire, two unskilled workers Sona Ram Soren and Podars Soren were asked to do repair work by the Contractor which they did but while they were getting down, Sona Ram Soren fell down on the ground and received serious injuries. He was taken to Hospital but unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries. It was noticed that no proper safety arrangement had been made and that work was being taken from unskilled workers. On the said allegation, complaint was lodged stating therein that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 being Occupier and Manager and also the Contractor have breached the provision of Rule 56 and 56 (C) (1)(d) of the Factories Rules, 1950 punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act. On the said complaint, learned Magistrate, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act on 13.4.1999.

(3.) The order under which cognizance was taken against these two petitioners was challenged before this Court, vide Cr. Misc. No.4122 of 1999 (R) on the ground that same is bad as the court without having previous sanction in writing of the Inspector in terms of the provision of section 105(1) of the Factories Act has taken cognizance of the offence. However, the court did find that no previous sanction was required to have before taking cognizance as the complaint had been lodged by the Inspector himself and, therefore, that application was dismissed. Meanwhile, one of the accused on being put to trial was acquitted and under this situation, this writ application has been filed whereby order taking cognizance has been challenged on the ground that it was the responsibility of the contractor under the terms of the agreement to observe the safety rules and hence, whatever latches was found, it was on the part of the contractor and not on the part of these petitioners, who at the relevant time were Occupier and the Manager and that no useful purpose would be served by putting these petitioners to prosecution as the contractor has already been acquitted.