Allowed

Mr. Mohammed Azeez v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CRL.P/2594/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under the Factories Act for violations regarding factory inspections. The court held that initiating prosecution without first passing an order accepting or rejecting the petitioners reply to the show-cause notice violated natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.1282/2020 and C.C.No.1275/2020 on the file of the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.

Mr. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2570 OF 2021 C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2594 OF 2021

¶8

In Crl.P.No.2570/2021

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

Mr. Mohammed Azeez, Director-cum-Occupier, Aged about 49 years, M/s. Healthium Medtech Pvt. Ltd., No.477/C, 4^th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058.

¶11

Mr. Ravindran P., Factory Mangar, Aged about 55 years, M/s. Healthium Medtech Pvt. Ltd., No.477/C, 4^th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058.

¶12

(By Sri Prashanth B.K., Advocate)

…Petitioners

AND

State of Karnataka, At the instance of Sri Prakash Shenoy A., Senior Assistant Director of Factories, Division-9, Bengaluru. (An inspector appointed under Section 8(1) of the Factories Act, 1948)

¶17

…Respondent

¶18

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1282/2020 filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Factories Act, 1948 and Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto which are produced at document No.1 on the file of the 31^st ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶20

In Crl.P.No.2594/2021

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

Mr. Mohammed Azeez, Director-cum-Occupier, Aged about 49 years, M/s. Healthium Medtech Pvt. Ltd., No.472/D, 13^th Cross, 4^th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058.

¶23

¶24

Mr. Khainar Anandnath Rajaram Factory Mangar, Aged about 45 years, M/s. Healthium Medtech Pvt. Ltd., No.472/D, 13^th Cross, 4^th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058.

¶25

…Petitioners

¶26

(By Sri Prashanth B.K., Advocate)

¶27

AND

¶28

State of Karnataka, At the instance of Sri Prakash Shenoy A., Senior Assistant Director of Factories, Division-9, Bengaluru. (An inspector appointed under Section 8(1) of the Factories Act, 1948)

¶29

…Respondent

¶30

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)

¶31

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1275/2020 filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Factories Act, 1948 and Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto which are produced at document No.1 on the file of the 31^st ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶32

¶33

These Criminal Petitions coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

These two petitions have been disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is same. In these two petitions, the petitioners have sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.1282/2020 and C.C.No.1275/2020, respectively, on the file of the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, initiated under Section 92 of the Factories Act read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The first petitioner-Mohammed Azeez, is common in both the cases.

¶36

Heard Sri Prashanth B K, learned counsel for

¶37

the petitioners and Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶38

The first petitioner is the Director-cum-

¶39

occupier of two factories situated in Sy.No.472 and Sy.No.477/C of Industrial Estate, Peenya, Bengaluru.

¶40

¶41

These two factories belong to M/s. Healthium Medtech Private Limited. The second petitioner, in Crl.P.No.2570/2021 is the Factory Manager situated in Sy.No.477/C and likewise the second petitioner, in Crl.P.No.2594/2021 is the Factory Manager situated in Sy.No.472.

¶42

The Senior Assistant Director of Factories inspected both the factory premises on 19.09.2019 and noticing certain deficiencies, issued notices to the petitioners requiring them to show the cause in writing within seven days. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners submitted their reply to the respondentSenior Assistant Director of Factories on 17.10.2019. Without passing any orders on the reply submitted by the petitioners, the respondent proceeded to initiate criminal action against them under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

¶43

¶44

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri B.K.Prashanth that once the petitioners submitted their reply to the notice issued by the respondent, the latter ought to have passed an order either accepting or rejecting the reply, so that the petitioners can prefer an appeal as envisaged under Section 107 of the Factories Act in case they are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent. The criminal action initiated by the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice and for this reason the proceedings in these two criminal complaints lodged against the petitioners cannot be sustained. In support of his arguments, he places reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of P.P.UPADHYA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [CRL.P.NO.2167/2014] and MAHENDRA KARLE VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES [WRIT PETITION NO.52870/2015 AND CONNECTED MATTERS] and the judgment of the High

¶45

¶46

Court of Madras in the case of L.GANDESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [CR.O.P.NOS.27835 AND 27838 OF 2014]. Therefore he argued for quashing the proceedings.

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the Factories Act does not contemplate passing of any order pursuant to reply given by the petitioners and straight away complaint can be initiated

¶48

for the offences under the Factories Act once the concerned authority notices deficiencies in the factory premises. His submission is that these two petitions are to be dismissed.

¶49

Section 92 of the Factories Act is a penal provision to take action against the occupier or the factory manager for contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act and Rule 14(c) of the Factories Rules, 1969 enables the Inspector to initiate prosecution.

¶50

¶51

In the case on hand, once the Senior

¶52

Assistant Director of Factories issued a notice to the petitioners requiring them to show cause in writing within seven days and thereafter the petitioners issued a reply showing cause for the notice issued to them, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to have passed an order either accepting or rejecting the reply submitted by the petitioners. This is necessary because Section 107 of the Factories Act enables them to prefer an appeal if at all they are aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent. Though there is no specific provision under the Factories Act that the concerned authority should pass an order to the reply submitted by the occupier or the factory manager, principles of natural justice require such an order to be passed, or otherwise the purpose of giving right to the occupier or the factory manager to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act becomes redundant.

¶53

¶54

What can be noticed in these two petitions is

¶55

that, without resorting to this procedure, the Senior Assistant Director of Factories directly initiated prosecution against the petitioners. Therefore their prosecution cannot be sustained. The same view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the High Court of Madras in the cases stated supra.

¶56

In view of this, I am of the opinion that these two petitions deserve to be allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1282/2020 and C.C.No.1275/2020, on the file of the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.

¶57

This order does not come in the way of respondent taking action afresh in accordance with law.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Kmv/-

Mr. Mohammed Azeez v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohammed Azeez v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U Mohammad Ashraf Vs B H a Ravi

Nagaraja P.K Vs State of Karnataka

Ramakrishna @ Rama Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N C Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Shamik Saha Vs the State of Karnataka