R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 27.5.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. C/2 case No. 2031 of 2006 whereby and whereunder Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act against the petitioners.
(2.) IT appears that a complaint was lodged by the Inspector of Factories - opposite party No. 2 stating therein that on 15.12.2005 when he received an information that on account of fatal accident occurred at Truck -1, Shed of M/s. Tata Motors Limited one worker, namely, Ram Kumar has died, he inspected the accident site and did find that demarcated gangway meant for passage way for movement of men and use of machine was being used as parking and for rectification work of newly built chassis of Tata Motor without adopting any safe measures and that newly built chassis were parked closely to each other in rows, having a unsafe space of only 2' -3' in between them, still the Management permitted to drive out OK chessis from these congested rows which was unsafe act, as a result of which fatal accident took place and that the chessis which knocked the deceased Ram Kumar, who was working there, was without having any break and as such accident took required to pass order in respect of condonation of delay in specific terms but as the court has not passed any order with respect to condonation of delay much less in specific terms, the order taking cognizance is bad in law and hence, it is fit to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that if it is argued on behalf of opposite party No. 2 that if the court does not pass order in respect of condonation of delay, then in that event it becomes the fault of the court and not the fault on the part of the presenting agency as the petition for condonation of delay was there before the court and in this eventually if this Court intends to go into that matter for the ends of justice then the point for consideration would be as to whether the complainant had assigned any satisfactory reason for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel in this respect submits that a letter sent by opposite party No. 2 to the Department of Labour, Government of Jharkhand for according sanction world indicate that on 10.1.2006 the opposite party No. 2 had sent a letter No. 20 dated 10.1.2006 to the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories which has been annexed with this application, obviously for the reason for according sanction of the prosecution as he under notification issued by the Department of Labour on 2.4.1994 seems to be competent person to accord sanction but is quite strange that in stead of according sanction for prosecution by Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, sanction for prosecution seems to have been accorded by the Joint Secretary in the Department of Labour and Employment vide his letter dated 24.5.2006 and as such complainant cannot take any excuse for launching the prosecution after the period of limitation on the ground that the sanctioning authority consumed time in according sanction for the prosecution and as such delay explained cannot be taken to be satisfactory.
(3.) HOWEVER as per the statement made in the counter affidavit it is the stand of opposite party No. 2 that the Inspector who under Section 105 of the Factories Act is empowered to file complaint before the court but before filing, he under the administrative direction was required to take permission from the Department of Labour, Employment and Training and accordingly, a letter was sent through proper channel in the Department of Labour and Employment for according sanction for prosecution which was granted on 24.5.2005 and then the complaint petition was filed on 27.5.2006 praying therein to take cognizance of the offence after condoning the delay and as such the order taking cognizance needs not to be interfered with this Court.;