Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
P.N. DESAI, J.
PATRICK GEORGE YADAUGA – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 2225 of 2012
Decided On : 22-07-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 200, 205 - Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 7-A (1), 32 (c), 92, 107 - Appeals - General duties of occupier - Floors, stairs and means of access - Safety of buildings and machinery - Power to require specifications of defective parts or tests of stability - Precautions in case of fire - Seeking permanent exemption from proceedings - Seeking quashing of proceedings - Artificial humidification - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Whether company shall be arrayed as an accused for initiating criminal proceedings in this case - Whether cognizance taken by learned JMFC is bad in law - Whether petitioner-accused who is exempted from appearance before trial court only on first day of appearance is deemed to have been exempted permanently during subsequent stages of proceedings - Whether complainant before instituting a criminal case against occupier for contravention of sections 7-A (1), 32 (c) of Factories Act, 1948 and provisions of Rule 84 and 79-A (b) of Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969, is required to pass an order on reply submitted to show-cause notice so as to enable occupier to file an appeal under section 107 of Factories Act, 1948 - Supreme Court held that judicial consistency promotes confidence in system, therefore, there is need for consistency in enunciation of legal principles in decision of this Court. Therefore, proposition stated in this judgment will not help petitioner in any way (Para 42).
Finding of the Court: There cannot be any dispute about proposition stated in above decisions. In case on hand, question involved is whether an order is required to be passed for contravention of provisions of sections and rules under Factories Act as alleged by complainant. No such discussion was there in earlier decisions relied by learned counsel for petitioner. They are writ petitions and criminal petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings. In those cases, contravention of provisions is totally different when compared to this case. No such principles on requirement of passing an order for contravention of any provisions of Factories Act and Rules was enunciated or discussed. Only relying on Judgment of Madras High Court, subsequent orders are passed. They have no direct bearing on issues raised in this case. No such authoritative pronouncement on question of law on this point, so as to term it as a binding precedent is forthcoming in said decisions. They are all very recent judgments based on facts and point argued in that case. Therefore, question of either disagreeing with those decisions or not following those decisions does not arise. In criminal cases, there are broad and general principles of law enunciated by courts for appreciation of evidence, but court has to decide case based on facts of that case and relevant provisions and principles of law applicable to case on hand. There cannot be any generality of following a particular decision which is not based on facts and circumstances and provisions of law involved in case on hand
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 1 before the trial court with a prayer to set aside the entire proceedings initiated by respondent against him in C.C. No. 684/2012 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal.
2. Factual matrix of the case for consideration is that the petitioner is one of the Director of M/s. Hindustan Coco-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi. The said company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distribution and selling of various kinds of beverages, fruit-drinks and packaged drinking water under the brand names inter-alia. Thumps Up, Fanta, Maaza, Limca, Sprite, Coca-Cola, Kinley Water and Soda. The petitioner functions entirely from his corporate office at Gurgaon, (Haryana) Office. There are more than 20 manufacturing units country wide and two of its units are in Karnataka. One is at Bidadi and the other at Koppal managed by Factory Managers. The petitioner visits the units whenever need arises.
3. It is further contended that the company gave a contract work order on 8th March 2012 to M/s. COTMAC Pvt. Limited, Hospet to carry out repairs and rectification of Air conditioners installed in the factory situated at Koppal. Earlier on many occasions said M/s. COTMAC Pvt. Ltd. Hospet, had carried out similar activity in the said factory.
4. It is contended that on 04.04.2012, prior to issuance of work permit system and before briefing about safety instructions to the contractor’s supervisor, without the knowledge of the Factory Manager, the contract workmen of M/s. COTMAC Pvt. Ltd. namely “Dadapeer” and “Yaseen” on their own went over the false ceiling of PET Bottle Filling Hall of the petitioner company. When they were in the process of visual inspection of Air-conditioner fixed to the eastern side wall of the production office, in that process, one of the workmen viz. “Mr. Yaseen” lost balance and stepped onto the false ceiling and thereby fell into PET production filling hall. He sustained grievous injury and was taken to the hospital. Mr. Dadapeer who was the Mechanic/Supervisor of M/s. COTMAC Pvt. Ltd. had bought Yaseen to work under him. The negligent act of the contract workmen of M/s. COTMAC Pvt. Ltd. was purely and solely responsible for the said accident. The company has absolutely no direct role in either allocation or control of workman Yaseen’s work.
5. The company informed the accident to the Police Sub-Inspector, Munirabad, Koppal on 07.04.2012. The respondent-Factory Inspector visited the spot and gave a show-cause notice to the company on 13.06.2012 alleging contravention of Rule 79-A (b) of The Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 (for short hereinafter referred as ‘Rules’ 1969) and called upon the petitioner as to why legal action should not be instituted against them. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show-cause notice. But the respondent instituted the criminal prosecution against the petitioner (Occupier) and Manager by filing a complaint under section 200 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’). before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 30.06.2012 for the offences punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short hereinafter referred as ‘Act 1948’). The learned Magistrate by order dated 02.07.2012 issued summons to the petitioner. It is further contended that on 03.08.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an application under section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking permanent exemption from the proceedings. The said application was allowed and subsequently, accused No. 2 was released on bail. Then on 01.09.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of court about the exemption already granted to the petitioner on 03.08.2012, but the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Hence, this petition is filed with a prayer t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
