The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper evidence to establish liability under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948, emphasizing the need to prove negligence and duty assignment.

1. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 24-11-2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6/M.P.I.R.Act/IV/2003 by Industrial Court, Raipur arising out of the judgment dated 28-11-2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, Durg in Criminal Case No.372/Factories Act/99. By judgment dated 28-11-2002 the learned Magistrate has acquitted the applicant/ accused of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. 1948 whereas by the impugned order dated 24-11-2004 while reversing the judgment of the learned Magistrate the learned Industrial Court has convicted the applicant/accused tinder Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and sentenced him to pay fine of Rupees One Lakh, in default of payment of fine the applicant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time the applicant/accused R.B. Singh was working as Factory Manager in Continuous Casting Shop, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. It is alleged that on 4-6-1999 when one Budharu was operating the crane and he was lifting last two heat slabs of a stack, 16 heat slabs stacked nearby toppled due to jerk and one of the 16 heat slabs fell on the deceased Dharam Singh who was working as Yard Assistant and his duty was to give signal to the crane operator for shifting the slabs to a particular place. After the incident, a case was registered against the applicant/accused on the ground that on the relevant date as he was working as factory manager it is he who was responsible for the entire act.

3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses namely Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, inspector of Factories and Deputy Director of Industrial Health and Safety, Durg and Budharu the crane operator. After recording evidence of these two witnesses, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 28-112002 has acquitted the applicant/accused by holding that the slab fell because of jerk. The learned Magistrate has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the applicant/accused beyond all doubts. It has been further held by the learned Magistrate that Budharu, the crane operator has not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, merely on the basis of the evidence of Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, the applicant/accused cannot be convicted.

4. The judgment dated 28-11-2002 has been reversed by the appellate Court vide impugned order dated 24-11-2004 passed in the criminal appeal preferred by the State Government. Hence this revision.

5. It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/accused that even if the entire evidence is taken as it is, the applicant/accused cannot be held liable for the unfortunate accident which had taken place on 4-6-1999. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the crane operator Budharu has explained as to how the accident had taken place and according to him after receiving signal from the deceased Dhararn Singh when Budharu was lifting last two heat slabs of a stack, 16 heat slabs stacked nearby toppled due to jerk and one of the 16 heat slabs tell on the deceased Dharam Singh. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that this witness has not made any allegation whatsoever against the applicant/ accused. He further submits that in fact, as per the statement of this witness, the accident took place on account of giving wrong signal by the deceased Dharam Singh and immediately after giving signal, it was expected from the deceased Dharam Singh to leave the spot and to maintain distance of 8 to 10 feet. He further submits that instead of doing so the deceased was standing there only and unfortunately one heat slab fell on him and the accident took place. Learned Senior Counsel also refers the statement of Mahesh Kumar Agrawal. As per the statement of this witness, there is no allegation against the applicant/accused because it has not been brought on record as to what was the duty assigned to the applicant/accused and in what manner he was