Sanjay Priya, J. – This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, in Complaint Case No.C2/2/14, Trial No.1159 of 2014 by which the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner for having violated Section 7A of the Factories Act, 1948, (hereinafter to be referred as “Act”) which is punishable under Section 92 of the Act.

2. Opposite Party No.2, who is a Factory Inspector, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur, made complain before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, accompanying with a report alleging therein that M/s Riga Sugar Company Ltd. is a factory within the meaning of Section 2 m (i) of the Act. On the basis of the information provided by the Factory Manager in Form-17A, dated 17.11.2013 under the Bihar Factory Rules, 1950, (herein after to be referred as “Rules”), it was made aware that an accident had taken place on 17.11.2013 in the factory premises in which the injured unskilled labour, namely, Uday Thakur died on 23.11.2013. An inspection regarding the accident was conducted on 19.12.2013, wherein, it was found that on 17.11.2013, electrical main panel weighing approximately 1 ton lying 150 feet away from the main door of the mill gate was being lifted by overhead crane to be placed on the first floor. The deceased was sitting on the top of the electrical panel for proper orientation. However, when the same was lifted half feet from the ground, the steel wire rope from one corner broke as a result of which the deceased received injury near his ear. He was taken to hospital from where he was referred to PMCH where he died on 23.11.2013 during the course of his treatment. In the Enquiry Report, it was concluded that the deceased, Uday Thakur, was unskilled labour working for the contractor, Sri Sunil Thakur. As such, technical work was being done by unskilled labour and, therefore, the accident had taken place leading to his death, which is non-adherence to Section 7A of the Act.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that provisions of Act are not attracted in the case of Sugar Mill in which the petitioner was employed. Section 116 of the Act clearly provides that unless otherwise provided this Act shall apply to factories belonging to the Central or any State Government. M/s Riga Sugar Mill Factory does not belong either to Central Government or State Government. Same is also substantiated from the notification issued by the Governor of Bihar, dated 12th August, 1988, wherein, types of factories have been notified as defined under Section 2 (m) of the Act. The provisions of Factories Act will not apply in case of Riga Sugar Mill. Therefore, question of non-adherence to the provision of Section 7A and penal consequences under Section 92 does not arise and, hence, the order taking cognizance is bad in law.

4. It has further been submitted that as per Section 92 of the Act, it is the Occupier and Manager of the factory, who can be held guilty of an offence. In the present case, petitioner No.2 is neither an Occupier nor the Manager, but is a Senior Vice President and, therefore, cognizance against him is against the provision of the Act.

5. Rule 56-A of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950, provides that no lifting shall be done unless it has been tested and all parts have been thoroughly examined by a competent person and a certificate of such a test specifying the safe working load has been obtained. In the present case, there was due compliance of the said provisions. The test certificates have been issued by Sri C. K. Singh, Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories (Retd.) Organizer, Industrial Analyzer, Patna, and Sri Chandradeo Singh, Member, Industrial Analyzer, Anandpuri, Patna. Certificates show that the checking and testing was conducted on 11.10.2013 and 12.10.2013 and no defects were found. The crane capacity was also mentioned as 20 and 30 tons. Copies of the Certificates hav