The High Court dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking discharge, holding it misconceived because the prayer was based on the same material and grounds previously rejected in an order dismissing the challenge to the order taking cognizance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1917 of 2018
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Deputy Chief Factory Inspector, Deputy Controller Industrial Health And Safety, Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
| For Petitioner | : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate with |
|---|---|
| Shri N.Naha Roy, Advocate | |
| For Respondent/State | : Shri Ashish Shukla, Dy. A.G. |
S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Order
19/09/2018
Heard on admission.
-2-
discharge at appropriate stage of proceeding before the Magistrate if a case is made out.
“10 . There are specific pleadings or allegations against the petitioners. Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 is as under :
“92. General penalty for offences—Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two years] or with fine which may extend to [one lakh rupees] or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to [one thousand rupees] for each day on which the contravention is so continued:
[Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than [twenty-five thousand rupees] in the case of an accident causing death, and [five thousand rupees] in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury.
Explanation.—In this section and in section 94 “serious bodily injury” means an injury which involves, or in all probability will involve, the permanent loss of the use of, or permanent injury to, any limb or the permanent loss of, or injury to, sight or hearing, or the fracture of any bone, but shall not include, the fracture of bone or joint (not being fracture of more than one bone or joint) of any phalanges of the hand or foot.]”
11 . The first objection raised by the petitioner is that the company has not been made a party does not hold any ground, the reason that there is nothing in the provision under Section 92 of the Act,
-3-
1948 that the company has to be made a party. The responsibility has been fixed on the occupier or the Manager of the factory for violation of any provisions of the Act or rules whether directly controlled by them or by any person executing their orders or any person authorized by them to supervise control and perform the functions in the factory.
12 . Although, it is requirement that orders summoning the accused persons in a complaint case, has to be a speaking order with reasons mentioned therein, but there is no prescribed format for passing such orders as has been held in Pepsi Foods Ltd.(supra), Sharad Kumar (supra) and Mohd. Ulrahman (supra). This by itself is not a ground to quash the proceeding initiated on the basis of complaint. The complaint against the petitioner has disclosed that the commission of offence as per the requirement of Section 190 of Cr.P.C., was made out. In the impugned order dated 31.03.2017, it was held that the complaint for violation of provisions of the Factory Act and rules shall continue and shall have overriding effect with respect to criminal case pending against the contractor.
13 . Hence, there is no reason to come to this conclusion that the prosecution against the petitioners, is not maintainable on the grounds of the reasons mentioned herein above, Section 92 of the Act, 1948, holds the occupier or the Manager of the factory vicariously liable for every contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1948 and the rules therein. It is for the petitioners to raise defence before the trial court and discharge the burden of proof with respect to their role in the incident and thereafter pray before the trial Court for acquittal. Although, the order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order, but looking to the criminal liability upon the petitioners under the provisions of Section 92 of the Act, it cannot be held manner that the proceeding against the petitioner is abuse of process of law, hence, this petition is without substance.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.”
Sd/(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge
Rekha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition for discharge remains maintainable after dismissal of an earlier petition challenging the same FIR and order taking cognizance.
Whether re-aggrandizement of the same grounds after earlier dismissal renders the present petition misconceived.
D. K. Mehta
S.K. Wali
State of Chhattisgarh
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
