Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) The petitioner by filing the present petition seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for brevity) to quash the entire proceedings being complaint case No. 65C of 2014 under Sec. 92/96A of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) including the order dated 27.01.2015 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
(2.) The factual background is that the O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint being case No. 65C of 2014 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on 27.01.2014 alleging commission of offence under Sec. 92 and 96A of the Act for contravention of the provisions of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958 against the present petitioner/accused and another. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the complaint took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner on 27.01.2014 fixing the date of appearance on 20.03.2014. Learned Advocate representing the petitioner entered appearance on 20.03.2014 and sought for permission for surrender of the petitioner on a subsequent date which was granted and the case was adjourned to 11.08.2014 for appearance. On that date the Advocate representing the petitioner moved an application under the provision of Sec. 101 of the Act and the case was adjourned to 27.11.2014. The case was further adjourned to 27.01.2015 on the personal ground of the Advocate representing the petitioner. On 27.01.2015 the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 101 of the Act was summarily rejected primarily on technical grounds by the Learned Magistrate and he directed issuance of non -bailable Warrant of Arrest against the present petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Sekhar Basu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been described in the compliant simply as the 'Occupier' of the factory without specifying the nature of liability and the role of the petitioner as 'Occupier' of the factory. He submitted that Sec. 2(n) of the Act provides that 'Occupier' of a factory means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. Ultimate control imposes ultimate obligation on the 'Occupier' in respect of whatever happens in the factory and when criminal liability arises out of official status of an officer, indispensable legal requirement is to describe the officer with the official status he held at the time of commission of any offence. Any deficiency in such description would result in the rejection of the complaint. Since in the present complaint it is not expressly stated in categorical words as to how the Occupier was responsible for the alleged contraventions, the complaint is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the decision reported in, 1987 C Cr L.R. (CAL) 301 (Ashoke Kumar Jajodia & Ans. V. The State of West Bengal) in support of such contention.;