Allowed

Ashwath Ram v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./158/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Tata Cummins officials for alleged Factories Act violations. The court held that the allegations were vague and bald, and continued prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case no. 2197 of 2018, including the impugned order dated 30.07.2019, were quashed and set aside.

Ashwath Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2021

¶4

Ashwath Ram, aged about 51 years, son of Ramaswamy Venkatnarayan Ramchadran, Managing Director cum Occupier, M/s Tata Cummins Private Limited, having its works at Cummins Road, TELCO Township, P.O. & P.S.- Telco, TownJamshedpur, East Singhbhum- 831004

¶5

Manish Kumar Jha, aged about 45 years, son of Narayan Jha, Director- Plant Manager, M/s Tata Cummins Private Limited, having its works at Cummins Road, TELCO Township, P.O. & P.S.- Telco, Town- Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum- 831004

¶6

…... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

The Factory Inspector, Jamshedpur, Circle No. 1, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Bishtupur, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum- 831004

¶10

….. Opposite Parties

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the Complaint Case no. 2197 of 2018 including the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and where under, it has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 92 and 96 A of the Factories Act, 1948.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioners is that Factory Inspector made an inspection of the factory in the name and style of M/s Tata Cummins Private Ltd. on 15.05.2018 and there is allegations against the petitioners of being responsible for the following irregularities:

¶17

¶18

Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2021

¶19

A. No provisions made for oil Mist Fumes Emissions which amounts to contravention of Rule 55A,

¶20

B. No change in the name of occupier,

¶21

C. No proper hygiene and ventilation maintained by the occupier,

¶22

D. Paint shop established in the factory and use of hazardous substances in the manufacturing process,

¶23

E. Canteen workers are made to work 10-12 hours per day.

¶24

F. Contract Labours are utilized for loading / unloading and made to work continuously for 12-14 days,

¶25

G. No register records, labour register nor any daily maintenance books or any records have been produced or supplied at the time of inspection or after inspection.

¶26

It is alleged that for the said irregularities, the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Section 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, 1948.

¶27

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as the offences punishable under Section 96A of the Factories Act, 1948 is concerned, the same provides for penalty for contravention of Sections 41B, 41C and 41H, which comes under chapter IVA of the Factories Act, 1948, which has enumerated provisions relating to hazardous processes.

¶28

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that ‘hazardous processes’ has been defined in Section 2(cb) of the Factories Act, 1948, which reads as under:

¶29

“Section 2. Interpretation.

¶30

(cb) "hazardous process" means any process or activity in relation to an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care is taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would(i) cause material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or connected therewith, or

¶31

(ii) result in the pollution or the general environment: Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule by way of addition, omission or variation of any industry specified in the said Schedule;]”

¶32

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the industries specified in the first schedule of the Factory Act, 1948, does not include M/s Tata Cummins Private Ltd., as the industrial activity carried out by M/s Tata Cummins Private Ltd. is manufacturing of high performance, reliable and durable midrange (B series) diesel engines in the 125 to 300HP range. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, the industrial activity carried out by

¶33

¶34

Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2021

¶35

M/s Tata Cummins Private Ltd. can be said to have involved hazardous processes.

¶36

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the employees of M/s Tata Cummins Private Ltd., which is a 50-50 joint venture between M/s Tata Motors Ltd., India’s largest automobile manufacturer and Cummins Inc., USA, World leaders in design and manufacture of diesel engine. It is further submitted that though the Factory Inspector – Opposite Party no. 2 , after inspection of the factory of the petitioners on 15.05.2018, left the petitioners’ company without making any adverse remark but later on, he alleged certain shortcomings enumerating a list of irregularities giving details of the violations. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 2 submitted a detailed compliance report along with supporting documents. It is next submitted that there is no violations of Rule 55A of the Bihar Factories Rule, 1950 , which reads as under :

¶37

“55A. General safety of buildings, structures, plants, machinery, etc. - (1) No building, wall, chimney, bridge, tunnel, drain, road gallery, passage, walkway or gage-way, ladder, stair-case, ramp floor, platform, staging, scaffolding or any other structure of bricks, masonary, cement, concrete, steel or any other material whether of a permanent or temporary character shall be constructed, situated, maintained or allowed to remain or be used in a factory and no machine, plant, equipment including electric lines, wiring, fitting and apparatus [apparatus as defined in clause (c) of rule 2 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910], shall be constructed, provided, situated, maintained or allowed to be used or operated in a factory, in such manner as may, or is likely to, cause any accident or any bodily injury.

¶38

(2) No process or work shall be carried on in any factory and no person shall be allowed to work on any process or any machinery, plant or equipment or in any part of a factory or in any other work in such manner as may, or is likely to cause any accident or any bodily injury.

¶39

(3) No materials, articles or equipments shall be kept stacked or stored in such manner as may or is likely to cause any accident or any bodily injury.”

¶40

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that though cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 7A (2), 51, 52, 53, 62, 41C of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 55A(2), 80, 62 have been taken but Section 7A of the Factory Act, 1948 do not have any sub clause numbered as 7A(2) nor Jharkhand Factory Rules, 1950 has any Rule 62NH and 62 OH, hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that

¶41

¶42

Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2021

¶43

continuation of proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court, hence, the same be quashed.

¶44

Learned G.A. III, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the Complaint Case no. 2197 of 2018 including the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and submits that the contention of the petitioners can be raised at the time of trial and it is submitted by learned G.A. III that this petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶45

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the allegation regarding, no provision made for Oil Mist Fumes Emission which amounts to contravention of Rule 55A of Jharkhand Factory Rule, 1950 is concerned, in the considered opinion of this court, such allegation even if accepted as the truth in its entirety still, does not amount to violation under provisions of Rule 55 A of the Bihar Factories Rule, 1950, which has been quoted in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. Similarly, other allegations are vague in nature and lack any details which, is required to establish a case in a criminal proceeding against the petitioner and basically bald and omnibus in nature. Further, as rightly, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that, neither Section 7A of the Factories Act, 1948 nor Rule 55A of the Bihar Factories Rule, 1950 has any clause 51, 52, 53, 62 , 41(c ) nor any Rule 80, 62NH and 62 OH.

¶46

Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the continuation of proceeding with bald and omnibus allegations lacking the ingredients to make out the case, punishable in law, will amount to abuse to process of court. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the Complaint Case no. 2197 of 2018 including the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is quashed and set aside.

¶47

5 Cr.M.P. No. 158 of 2021

¶48

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and

¶49

consequently, the interim order, granted earlier stands vacated.

¶50

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶51

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 21^st March, 2023 Smita /AFR

Ashwath Ram v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwath Ram v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Rakshit Kumar Alias Rachit Kumar Alias Rakshith Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mehrun Nisha Vs Union of India through the General Manager Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

Louis Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avijit Ghosh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Parwej Khan Alias Parwej Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand