Dismissed

Sri Natarajan S v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2021WP/15214/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, during a pre-liminary hearing, quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the Factories Act. The court held that initiating criminal action directly without the statutory authority passing an order on the petitioner's reply to an inspection notice violated principles of natural justice and denied the right to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 4187/2020 before IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.

Sri Natarajan S Vs State of Karnataka by — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.15214 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Natarajan S., Aged about 55 years, Director & Occupier, M/s. SEG Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Naganathapura, Electronics City Post, Bengaluru.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri K.Kasturi, Senior Counsel for Smt. Subha Ananthi K., Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka by The Senior Assistant Director Of Factories, Division-08, Bengaluru (An Inspector Appointed under Section 8(1) of The Factories Act, 1948), Karmika Bhavana, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-560029.

¶13

Sri Suresh G., Operator/Contract Worker, G.Balasubramanyam & Co.

¶14

¶15

No.56, St.Johns Road, Bengaluru-560042.

¶16

Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

¶17

…Respondents

¶18

(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1; Sri. Jagannath Rao, Advocate for R3)

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to declare proviso (ii) to sub section (n) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quash the complaint dated 15.02.2020 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of 9^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.C.No.4187/2020 at Annexure-C and etc.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing through video conferencing this day, the court made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri K.Kasturi, senior counsel for the

¶23

petitioner, Government Pleader and Sri Jagannath

¶24

Rao, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶25

¶26

Prayer (1) regarding challenging the vires of

¶27

proviso (ii) to sub-section (n) of Section 2 of the Factories Act is not pressed by the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner is a Director and Occupier of M/s SEG Automotive India Private Limited within the meaning of Factories Act. On 22.11.2019, the contract worker namely Suresh G met with an accident while he was operating battery operated stacker machine. Petitioner says that the said worker was operating the machine negligently and therefore the accident occurred. It is stated that the Inspector of Factories gave a notice to the petitioner and the latter replied to it on 8.2.2020. Thereafter, criminal action was initiated against the petitioner under the Factories Act. The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. 4187/2020 lodged against him in the Court of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶29

¶30

The undisputed facts show that the

¶31

petitioner replied to the notice issued by the Inspector of Factories. It appears that the Inspector did not

¶32

pass any order on the reply given by the petitioner. In an akin situation, this court, in Criminal Petitions 2570/2021 c/w 2594/2021 held that the authority concerned should pass an order either accepting or rejecting the reply. This enables aggrieved party like the petitioner to prefer an appeal. If criminal action is taken directly, it amounts to violating principles of natural justice. Since this procedure is not followed, the criminal action against the petitioner cannot be sustained, hence the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 4187/2020 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.

¶33

¶34

However this order does not prevent the

¶35

concerned authority from taking action in accordance

¶36

with law.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

ckl

Sri Natarajan S v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Natarajan S v. State of Karnataka by

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

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the State by

Shri Lakshmi Steel Suppliers Vs Samruddhi Realty Ltd.

M/S Concept Horizon Infra Pvt.Ltd Vs Aparna Nagesh Prakash

Mr H Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmaraju Vs the State of Karnataka by

Chandrashekar. L Vs M. T. Krishnappa