IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – Dowry death – Courts are duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of circumstances under which bail is granted in these case – Superficial application of bail parameters not only undermine gravity of offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in judiciary’s resolve to combat menace of dowry deaths.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Stamp Number Main No. 944 of 2020 (F). By the said judgment, the High Court allowed the prayer of the respondent herein and quashed the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Panaji in Criminal Case No. LC/19/2019/C. By the said order, the Ld. JMFC had issued process to the respondent pursuant to the complaint filed by the appellants alleging violation by the respondent of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1948’) and thereby committing offences punishable under Section 92 thereof.

FACTS:-

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Pursuant to the inspection conducted on 20.05.2019 in the premises of the respondent wherein the business of Professional Laundry Service was carried on, it was found that the respondent did not possess factory approved plans as required under Rule 3 of the Goa Factories Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) read with Section 6 of the Act of 1948; that the premises were being used as a factory without obtaining a valid factory licence in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules read with Section 6 of the Act of 1948 and that the respondent had not submitted any application for registration and grant of licence in violation of Rule 6 of the Rules read with Section 6 of the Act of 1948. An inspection report was drawn up and the same was furnished by a covering letter dated 24.05.2019 with the “occupier of the respondent” to report compliance within 15 days.

4. The inspection report set out that at the time of inspection there were more than 9 workers employed; that there was no muster roll maintained for the month of May 2019; and that the manufacturing process of cleaning and washing of clothes was carried on. The report set out the details of the machinery/equipments and the total installed power and set out that the premises amounted to a factory within the purview of Section 2(m)(i) of the Act of 1948 and also observed about the violation, as set out hereinabove, with regard to the absence of registration and licence for use of the premises as factory. The occupier was advised to submit an application for due compliance of the Act failing which they were warned that it will constitute criminal offence punishable under the Act of 1948.

5. The complaint alleged that by the letter of 30.05.2019 signed by the authorized signatory of the respondent a reply was furnished, setting out that the respondent who operated under the name and style of “White Cloud” is a professionally set up laundry comprising of six collection centres around Goa and one central processing unit; that it had 58 employees in the collection centres including 10 workers at the central processing unit; that a similar inspection had been carried out in October 2005 and no further action was taken; that under the Act of 1948, washing and dry cleaning would not constitute “manufacturing process”; that “laundry business” is a service and not a manufacturing activity since the “product” of the business is intangible; that what is rendered is a service and that they are duly registered under the Shops And Establishments Act.

6. The letter also annexed certain judgments to contend that the activity did not constitute the “manufacturing process”. It was contended that in view of the above there is no contravention of any of the legal provisions.

7. It transpires that pursuant to the request of 17.06.2019 by the respondent, a personal hearing was also afforded to them and a hearing was indeed given by Shri Vivek Marathe, Chief Inspector, Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers. The complaint further averred that after further correspondence with the respondent since their reply was unsatisfactory, the complainant wrote and obtained information from the Regional Director, Empl