SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Cal) 259

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
N. C. Talukda, J.
SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL
VERSUS
MADHABLAL MEHTA AND ANOTHER
Criminal Revn. Case No. 355 of 1973,
Decided On : September 21, 1973

The prosecution of Directors of a company for offences under the Factories Act, 1948 is governed by Section 100(2) of the Act, which provides that only one Director can be prosecuted, not all of them.

Headnote:

FACTORIES ACT - SECTION 92 - SECTION 100(2) - PROSECUTION OF DIRECTORS FOR OFFENCES UNDER THE ACT - INTERPRETATION - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS - PROCEDURE - INHERENT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS.

Fact of the Case:

A complaint was filed against five accused persons, including two accused opposite parties, for contravention of Section 18(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 35 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958. Three of the accused pleaded guilty and were convicted, while the proceedings against the remaining two accused were dropped by the Magistrate.

Finding of the Court:

1. The procedure adopted by the Magistrate in dropping the proceedings was not proper as there is no provision for dropping proceedings in a summons procedure case. 2. The prosecution of the two accused opposite parties was not maintainable in law as they were not Directors of the occupier Company during the relevant period and the proviso to Section 100(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 had not been availed of.

Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in dropping the proceedings against the two accused opposite parties? 2. Whether the prosecution of the two accused opposite parties was maintainable in law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for dropping proceedings in a summons procedure case. 2. Section 100(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 provides that where the occupier of a factory is a company, any one of the Directors thereof may be prosecuted and punished for any offence under the Act. The use of the words "any one" in the provision indicates that only one Director can be prosecuted, not all of them. 3. In the present case, two of the Directors had already been convicted and sentenced, and the prosecution of the remaining two Directors was therefore not maintainable.

Final Decision: The Rule was disposed of, and the proceedings against the two accused opposite parties were quashed.

JUDGMENT

N. C. Talukdar, J. :- Two points of law, one relating to procedure and the other to merits, have been raised in this Rule obtained by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, and directed against an order dated the 9th February, 1973, passed by Shri A. K. Dutta, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore, Dist. Hooghly, in C.R. Case No. 793 of 1972 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act LXIII of 48).

2. The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. Shri K. K. Sengupta, Inspector of Factories, Serampore filed a petition of complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore on 14-9-1972 against five accused persons, including the two accused opposite parties, stating inter alia that the complainant is the Inspector of Factories, Serampore and filed the petition of complaint in his official capacity; that during his visit to the factory known as M/s. Samnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd., North Mill, 26, Grand Trunk Road, P.O. and P.S. Bhadreswar, Dist. Hooghly on the 16th June, 1972, it was ascertained by him that although more than 250 workers were ordinarily employed in the factory, the drinking water supplied to them from the 1st April, 1972, was not cooled by ice or other effective method as required under Section 18(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 35 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958, prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Factories Act 1948; that the accused Nos. 1-4 Gourilal Mehta, Harilal Mehta, Madhavlal Mehta and S. C. Roy are the occupiers and the accused No. 5, R. P. Jha is the Manager of the said factory; that the accused persons had committed an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for a contravention of Section 18(3) of the Factories Act 1948 read with Rule 35 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958, prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Factories Act, 1948 and accordingly process may be issued against them. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by his order of the same date issued summons on the accused persons as prayed for. On 19-12-1972 the next date fixed, three of the co-accused viz., Gourilal Mehta, Harilal Mehta and R. P. Jha pleaded guilty through their learned Lawyer and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, accepting the same convicted them under Section 92 of the Factories Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- each i.e., to undergo S.I. for five days each. On 9-1-1973 an application was filed on behalf of the defence objecting to the maintainability of the prosecution against the present two accused opposite parties on points of law and praying for a recall of the warrant of arrest till the disposal of the same. On hearing the parties, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated the 9th February, 1973, dropped the proceedings against them and recalled the warrant of arrest. The said order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present Rule.

3. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 and a supplementary affidavit on behalf of both the opposite parties were affirmed on the 30th July, 1973 and the 19th September, 1973, respectively. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition it has been averred that the opposite party No. 2 never was nor is a director of the jute mill referred to viz. the Samnuggar Jute Factory Company Limited (North Mill) and that it is wholly incorrect to say that he ever was a Director thereof. It was further submitted in paragraph 6 that the process was issued against the opposite party No. 2 upon a mistaken view of fact that he was one of the Directors of the Jute Mills concerned and as such in the interest of justice the proceedings should not be allowed to proceed. In the supplementary affidavit affirmed by the Secretary of Thomas Duff & Co. (India) Ltd. Agents in India for the Samnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd., it was














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top