Both above said petitions were heard analogously with consent of both the parties as the common question of law was involved in above-said petitions and accordingly, a common order is being passed in both the above-said petitions.

2. Two separate complaint petitions i.e. Complaint Case No. 25C 2 of 2006 as well as Complaint Case No. 26C2 of 2006 were filed by Sri Gopal Kumar, Factory Inspector, Begusarai Division, District-Begusarai against the petitioner and one co-accused, Sri S.A. Khan for violation of Sections-41C & 62 of Factories Act read with rules 62 NH, rule 62OH and rule 80 of Bihar Factories Rules 1950 punishable under Sections-96A & 92 of Factories (amended) 1987 Act. On the basis of aforesaid complaint petitions, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai took cognizance for the above-said offences vide order dated 30.8.2006 against which, the above-said petitions have been preferred by petitioner under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The brief fact which lies to file these petitions is that the above-said Gopal Kumar, Factory Inspector, Begusarai Division, Begusarai inspected the premises of Barauni Marketing Terminal of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 29.5.2006. The aforesaid Barauni Marketing Terminal of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd had been registered under the Factories Act in the category of hazardous factory having registration No. 62675/BSR. At the time of aforesaid inspection, Sri A.S. Khan was posted as Manager (RC) of the aforesaid factory and the aforesaid factory inspector came to know that one Dr. A.G. Kannan (Director, Marketing) was the occupier of the aforesaid factory under Section-2(N) of Factories (amended) 1987 Act whereas; the petitioner namely, Gyanchand Daga had been appointed as Director (Marketing) of the aforesaid factory by the Government and he was legally the occupier of the aforesaid factory. The aforesaid inspector of factories found several violations of mandatory provisions of Factories Act as well as rules framed by the Bihar Government and accordingly, he sent the inspection report dated 07-07-2006 to the of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd with direction to rectify the irregularities but the aforesaid irregularities were not removed as per law and accordingly, he prayed before the concerned court for taking cognizance against the petitioner and above-said Sri S.A. Khan under the appropriate Sections of Factories Act.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties denying the pleadings of the petitioner.

5. Having heard both the parties on the point of admission, these petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself, with consent of both the parties.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.D. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner submits that in Complaint Case No. 26C2 of 2006, the cognizance has been taken under Section-92 of Factories Act for violation of Section-62 of Factories (amended) 1987 Act read with rules 80 & 59C of Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. He, further submits that Section-92 of the Factories Act says that only occupier and Manager of the factory are liable for contravention of provisions of Factories Act. It is further contended by him that if a factory is considered as a factory owned and controlled by the Government, the person appointed to manage the affairs of the factory by the Government shall have to be deemed to be the occupier of the aforesaid factory. It is further contended by him that if the Government has the real ultimate controlled over the affairs of the factory, the aforesaid factory would be deemed to be controlled by the Government and in that situation, Section-2(N)(iii) would apply which says that in the case of a factory owned or controlled by the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority, the person or persons appointed to manage the affairs of the factory by the Central Government, the State Government or local authority, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the occupier. It is further