- (1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 21-1-2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Mango P. S. Case No. 392 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. No. 2549 of 2005 whereby and where under the cognizance for the offence under Sections 285,286,337,338 and 304-A of the IPC has been taken against the petitioner and others. The petitioner further prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief as per the FIR lodged by Intekhab Ahmad (Annexure-1) is that he was working in Ama Enterprises. It is further stated that in the said Ama Enterprises, seats of vehicles manufactured by Telco, are being prepared. It is further stated that after painting the seats they were put in hot chamber and heated for 10 minutes at a temperature of 200 Centigrade. It is further alleged that on 25-11-2005 at about 11.30 a.m. after painting the seats the informant along with others put the said seats in the hot chamber for heating. It is further alleged that when the In-charge of the Hot Chamber, namely, Md. Shakeel, ignited the hot chamber it burst due to explosion. It is further alleged that in the aforesaid explosion, Sonu an employee of the factory sustained serious injuries, whereas other employee, namely, Abdul Hamid, informant (Intekhab), Makbul Alam, Md. Yamin also received injuries. It is further alleged that the said hot chamber was not properly maintained by the owner, Manager and Site Incharge of the factory, namely, Ejaj Ahmad, Abdul Salam and Md. Jamil respectively. It is further alleged that the accused persons are negligent in maintaining the hot chamber, hence the accident took place. It appears that on the basis of aforesaid statement of Intekhab Ahmad Mango P. S. Case No. 392 of 2005 under Sections 285, 286, 337 and 338 of the IPC instituted and police took up investigation. It further appears that during the investigation one of the injured died. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 285, 286, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC, accordingly, vide order dated 21-1-2006, the learned CJM, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. It is not out of place of mention that the aforesaid Ama Enterprises is registered under the provisions of Factories Act having its Registration No. 64232/SBM occupied by Ejaj Ahmad. It further appears that when the said accident came to the notice of Inspector of Factory, Jamshedpur, he directed the occupier/representative of the factory to give notice regarding the accident in writing. However, no such notice was given by the aforesaid M/s. Ama Enterprises. It then appears that the Inspector of Factory inspected the Factory premises on 26-11-2005, 1-12-2005,6-12-2005 and found contravention of Section 37(1)(2) of Factories Act, 1948. It further appears that on repeated demand when the written notice has not been given by M/s. Ama Enterprises, the Inspector further found contravention of Section 88 of the Factories Act read with Rule 96 of the Jharkhand Factory Rules. Thus a complaint filed in the Court of CJM, Jamshedpur praying therein that the cognizance of offences under Section 92 of the Factory Act may be taken against accused person.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if any accident took place in a factory premises then only a case under Section 92 of the Factory Act is maintainable. IT is submitted that for the same sets of facts petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Sections 285, 286, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. IT is submitted that when there is a special law for prosecuting the occupier of the factory for the accident, which took place in his factory, then the general law i.e. Indian Penal Code have no application. IT is submitted that it is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law. IT is further submitted that as per Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code, one person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. On the other hand, learned Additional P. P. submits that Section 92 of the Factories Act prescribe punishment only for contravention of the provisions of Factories Act. It does not prescribe any punishment regarding the rash and negligent act of the occupier or the manager, which resulted into the accident in factory in which any worker died or received bodily injury. It is submitted that the offences mentioned in Factories Act and IPC are distinct and different. It is submitted that the principle that the special law will prevail over the general law, have no application in this case. It is further submitted that Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply in the instant case because the offences are different. Moreover up till now there is no conviction or acquittal of the accused petitioner in either of the case. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order which require any interference by this Court.;