The responsibility for safety measures under the Factories Act lies with the contractor, and the factory management may not be held criminally liable for incidents involving workers not directly employed by them.

JUDGMENT

1. This is a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC No.89/2014 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kustagi, Koppal district.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the Director and Deputy General Manager respectively of Vahni Distilleries Private Limited. The factory is at Tavaragera, which is registered under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and is engaged in manufacturing Indian Made Liqour (IMFL) since 2009 by employing about 100 workers on contract basis. Since the consumption of power load of the factory exceeded 65 HP, it became mandatory to convert the electrical connection from LT to HT in order to regulate the increased supply. Hence, GESCOM directed the factory to get the LT connection converted into HT connection. Accordingly, the factory issued a work order to a licenced electrical contractor M/s. Alsa Afseen Electricals, for supply, erection and commissioning of new HT transformer, as per Annexure-A. The entire civil work assigned to the said contractor was a one-time independent turnkey job to be set up outside the factory building. The terms of the said work-order are agreed between the parties, in terms of Annexure-A. On 08.01.2014, around 2.45 p.m., one Rajasab, helper-worker under the said contractor while fixing of Gang Operated Switch (GOS) to the pole in the HT Transformer Yard, lost balance after accidentally slipping and fell down from the pole. As a result of the fall, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital. The doctor administered first-aid, however thereafter he was declared dead. Petitioner 2 herein promptly informed the office of the Inspector of Factories on the same day. An inspection was conducted next day on 09.01.2014 and the Deputy Director of Factories/respondent herein prepared the Accident Investigation Report as per Annexure- B. Based on the same, respondent issued show-cause notice dated 13.03.2014 to the petitioners, as per Annexure-C. The petitioners submitted their reply statement on 29.03.2014, as per Annexure-D. The petitioners were under the bonafide impression that respondent would drop the proceedings. However, without considering the averments made therein, respondent preferred a complaint on 03.04.2014 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC at Kustagi, Koppal, in CC No.89/2014, as per Annexure-E, alleging contravention of Section 32(c) and sought punishment under Section 92 of the said Act. On the same day, the Court below purportedly took cognizance of the alleged offence and ordered issue of summons to the accused/petitioners herein.

3. The petitioners have stated that the Factory has state of art safety features and till this date there is no complaint regarding safety of its workers being compromised. The deceased helper proceeded to the spot outside the factory building without making use of safety equipment available in the premises. The entire incident is wholly on account of the negligence attributable to the said deceased, who was engaged in by the contractor. Hence, the petitioners cannot be saddled with the vicarious criminal liability for the incident. After investigation, the jurisdictional police had filed B report holding that the petitioners are not guilty of any negligence in the matter. When the allegations are taken up, their face value do not make out a prima facie case of the alleged offence, it is absolutely necessary to quash the impugned proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. It is further contended that the entire incident has reflected in the security/safety lapse on the part of the factory and the petitioners. Mere accidents will not ipso-facto lead to the conclusion that the safety norms in the factory are not followed since even with complete safety features present in the workplace, accident do take place due to negligence o