( 1 ) THE petitioner against whom the respondent has filed a complaint before JMFC. II Court, Hubli has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 1285/90 after setting aside the order of the Magistrate dated 21-8-1990 issuing process to him.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT has filed the complaint before the Magistrate against the petitioner for contravention of Rules 84 and 88 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

( 3 ) THE gist of the allegations in the complaint is as follows : Accused-petitioner is designated as the 'occupier' in respect of M/s. South Central Railway Mechanical Workshop including Electrical Maintenance Department, Gadag Road, Hubli. The said factory comes within the purview of the Act. The repair of railway wagons and engines is carried on in that factory with the help of electricity. This factory is registered under the provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) THE accused-petitioner sent a report to the effect that on 18-5-1990, at about 1. 15 p. m. one helper by name Shri Rosaiah met with a fatal accident in the factory premises. One Thyagarajan Factories' Inspector and another Shri P. Ramasanjeevaiah, Senior Inspector inspected the spot and they directed Shri Somashekar to continue the investigation. Shri Somashekar recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared a report. On his transfer, the Deputy Inspector of Factories examined the records and found that the petitioner-accused had contravened the provisions of Rules 84 and 88 of the Rules. On 18-5-1990 when Rosaiah was sitting on the railway line and carrying on some repair to a railway bogie some carriages which were being shunted came and dashed against the bogie on which Rosaiah was working and as a result of that impact, bogie ran over Rosaiah. The accident has taken place on account of shunting work being done without giving prior signal and moving carriages without any precaution and negligently.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations in the complaint would disclose that the accident took place because the wagons were shunted without giving prior signal and without taking proper precautions and in a negligent manner when a worker was working on the rail, that it is not even alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was either present at the time of the accident or that he played any part in the accident, that the accident has taken place if at all on account of negligence of the person who was doing the shunting work and that the complaint against the petitioner for contravention of Rules 84 and 88 of the Rules is wholly misconceived.

( 6 ) RULES 84 and 88 which are stated to have been contravened by the petitioner read as under :"84. Methods of work : No process of work shall be carried on in any factory in such a manner as to cause risk of bodily injury. 88. Means of internal transport and lay-out : No railway or other electrical or mechanical means of transport or system of roadways or railways within the precincts of a factory, shall be constructed, situated, operated or maintained in such a manners to cause work risk or bodily injury to workers; provided that the Inspector may issue an order in writing, when he has reason to believe that there is imminent danger to human life, prohibiting use of such railway or roadways, till it is proved to his satisfaction that the danger is eliminated, notwithstanding the provisions of any other act. "

( 7 ) RULE 84 prohibits any process of work which is likely to cause risk of bodily injury to be carried on in the factory. It is not the complainant's case that the work of shunting which was done within the factory premises was likely to cause risk of bodily injury. In fact, one of the essential works carried on in the factory is to effect repairs to railway wagons and engines and shunting of the wagon