D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order impugned dated 7.6.2006 passed in Compliant Case C/2 Case No. 13 of 1997 for the alleged offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 by which Shri S.K. Choudhary, Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Jamshedpur dismissed the application of the petitioner preferred under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. Petitioner further requested for the quashment of the entire criminal proceeding in view of the observation made by the Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 7208 of 1997(R).
(2.) COMPLAINANT -Factory Inspector opposite party No. 2 narrated that M/s. Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Limited (M/s. TELCO Ltd. in short) is registered under Factories Act, 1948 under Section 2M(I). The said factory is run by the electric machines duly operated by the workers which manufactures trucks, bus chassis, casting/forging etc. On 28.3.1997 the complainant - opposite party No. 2 was informed on telephone by the Safety Manager of M/s. TELCO Ltd. about an accident that had taken place and pursuant to such information, the complainant immediately rushed there inspected the place, prepared the chart of ladder and electrical pole and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. In the said process, complainant -opposite party No. 2 learnt that the painting work of electric pole from the main gate of factory towards the passage of the road were being done on 28.3.1997 with the help of trolley ladder by K. Thakur, Nagendra Bhagat and Ananto. The work was being done under the direction of the contractor Shri Rabinder Singh, who had engaged them for doing the painting work. Complainant - Factory Inspector gathered from the materials on record that the work was started on 27.3.1997 which continued on 28.3.1997 till afternoon. After lunch break, workers resumed their work of painting being down with the help of ladder which was held on the one end by Nagendra Bhagat and on the other end by Ananto, whereas K. Thakur was on the ladder doing the painting work. After some time, Nagendra Bhagat asked K. Thakur to come down as he wanted to move the ladder and while K. Thakur was getting down he was cautioned to get down slowly but in the meantime, one of the ridge of the trolley came out which caused ladder to jerk and in spite of best efforts made by Ananto, K. Thakur fell down on the road from the ladder and sustained injuries. Victim was removed to hospital and from there he was transferred to Kharangajhar Hospital where he died. In view of such occurrence, Factory Inspector opposite party No. 2 filed a written complaint under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 against the petitioner and another for alleged violation of Section 7A of the Factories Act, 1948 as also for violation of Rule 62BH and Rule 55(A)(2) of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. Having been prima facie satisfied with the allegation as made in the complaint Mr. Md. Kasim, Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence on 27.6.1997 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. According to the complainant - Factory Inspector, he had given the name of the accused No. 1 S.J. Ghandy and the accused No. 2 A.C. Sinha (petitioner herein) as the persons holding the office of Occupier and Manager respectively. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Rana Pratap Singh initiated his argument by submitting that it would be evident from the complaint and from the statements of the witnesses that the painting work by using trolley ladder was given effect to by workers including the victim under the instruction and supervision of the contractor Shri Rabinder Singh and the supervisor Nagendra Bhagat but the victim himself had not adopted the safety measures which resulted into accident. After the alleged accident, the matter was immediately informed to the complainant - Factory Inspector, who submitted a report by disclosing violation of certain provisions of Factories Act and he recommended for some safety measures to be adopted and pursuant to such direction M/s. TELCO Ltd. submitted a compliance report to the complainant - Factory Inspector vide its letter No. S2/5/1F/1052 dt. 19.8.1997.
(3.) ADVANCING his argument, Mr. Singh submitted that the contract work of painting of electrical pole was given to M/s. M.L. Electricals. M/s. TELCO Ltd. while allotting the contract work to M/s. M.L. Electricals had also issued "Safety Instruction Certificate" to the contractor along with a copy of "Safety Rules and Regulations" to be observed during contract work. Yet, the victim under supervision of the contractor had not adopted the safety measures and on account of his negligence the accident took place for no fault of others therefore, no person could be made liable for the accident that took place outside the premises of the Company.;