Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
S. Murli, S/o Shri H.R. Shivkumaran – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through – The Station House Officer, Police Station Dabhra - Respondents
CRMP No. 1057 of 2014, Cr.M.P. No. 165 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 300, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34, 120- B, 287, 338 & 304-A - Factories Act, 1948 - Section 2(m), 7A(2)(c), 7A(2)(d), 88, 92, 93, 105 - Sea Customs Act, 1963 - Section 167(8) – Factory - General duties of occupier - Causing death by negligence - General penalty of offences - Whether initiation of prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC against petitioners will amount to double jeopardy, violation of Article 20 (2) of Constitution of India or Section 300 of Cr. P. C. for same offence and fact that Judicial Magistrate (Labor Court) has already convicted to occupier by imposing fine.
Findings of the Court:
It is quite clear that conviction under the Factories Act by Labor Court cannot create any bar for Investigating Agency to register FIR under Section 304 of IPC and subsequent continuation of criminal proceeding before Judicial Magistrate, as both offence are altogether different offences will not amount to double jeopardy as it is neither in violation of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. nor Article 20(2) of Constitution of India, submission of petitioner to extent of protection of Article 20 (2), read with Section 300 Cr.P.C. is not available to petitioner, as such his contentions are liable to be rejected.
Result: Petitions dismissed off.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
The offence under the Factories Act is a strict statutory offence that does not require mens rea, and it arises out of a breach of specific duties imposed by the Act (!) (!) . Therefore, prosecution under the Factories Act and under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the same incident are considered separate offences with distinct ingredients, and both can be prosecuted independently (!) (!) .
The provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act prescribe a specific penalty for contraventions, which may include imprisonment or fine, and these penalties are based on statutory breaches rather than general criminal law (!) (!) .
The initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 304-A of the IPC for causing death by negligence does not amount to double jeopardy or violate the protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, even if there has been a conviction or penalty under the Factories Act (!) (!) .
The offences under the Factories Act and the IPC are based on different legal principles and facts; thus, prosecution under both laws is permissible, and one does not bar the other (!) (!) .
The protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is not available to prevent prosecution under the IPC if the offences are distinct and based on different ingredients (!) (!) .
The legal process allows for separate trials for offences under the Factories Act and the IPC, and a conviction or penalty under one does not preclude the prosecution or trial under the other (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the mere existence of a conviction under the Factories Act does not bar subsequent criminal proceedings under the IPC, as both offences are based on different legal and factual foundations (!) (!) .
The court directed the trial courts to proceed with the cases without delay, emphasizing that the proceedings should be concluded within a specified timeframe, and that the order of quashing the proceedings was not justified (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal analysis clarifies that prosecution under the IPC for causing death by negligence is permissible even if there has been a conviction or penalty under the Factories Act, as the offences are distinct both in their legal basis and ingredients. The protections claimed under constitutional provisions or criminal procedural law do not bar such separate proceedings.
ORDER :
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'the Code'), they heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioner – S. Murali has filed the petition Cr.M.P. No. 1057/2014 challenging the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 428/2014 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa arising out of the FIR No. 65/14 registered at Police Station Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Petitioner – N. Krishna Kumar has filed the petition Cr.M.P. No. 165/2015 challenging the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 406/2014 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh arising out of the FIR No. 33/2014 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh for the offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. [For the sake of convenience, Cr.M.P. No. 1057/2014 is taken-up as lead case]
3. Brief facts are projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are working on the posts of Executive Vice President & Deputy General Manager, respectively in M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-TN, which is establishing a 4/360 MW coal based thermal Power plant at Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. The said Company has given its construction work to Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the said Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd., in turn, has given a contract to M/s Brothers Engineering and the said M/s Brothers Engineering entrusted the work to M/s Preety Erectors. While the Preeti Erectors was executing the work, one of the workers namely Gogli Prasad, while working, met with an accident on 03.10.2013 and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 18.10.2013. Thereafter, the Police of Police Station Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa registered an FIR being Crime No.65/2014 on 27.02.2014 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and three others. After usual investigation, the police has submitted the charge sheet/ final report before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa on 16.07.2014, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 428/2014 for committing offence punishable under Section 304- A/34 of IPC,
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions would submit that the petitioners’ establishment where the accident took place, is a factory as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, which is extracted below :-
(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any date of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that since the establishment where the accident took place is a Factory premises as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factory Act, 1948 and the said incident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased/employee, therefore, a complaint under Section 105 of the Factory Act, 1948 has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Labour Court), Janjgir- Champa which was registered as Criminal Case No. 106/FA/2013 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Dr. S. Arumugam) against the occupier of the factory for alleged negligence of the occupier which is violation of Section 7 A (2)(d) of the Factory Act, 1948, which is extracted below :-
Provision of Section 92 of Factories Act, it is clear that Factories Act is not a part of general penalty law but arise out of a breach of a duty provided in it - Offence punishable under Factories A....
Concurrent prosecutions under the IPC and Factories Act for the same incident are permissible as the laws address different legal elements and liabilities.
It is clear that the law is well settled that in order to attract provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India or Section 300 of CrPC or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the ingred....
A Factory Manager can be prosecuted under IPC Section 304A for negligence leading to an employee's death, even if the Occupier was previously prosecuted under the Factories Act, without violating dou....
A person cannot be held criminally liable for an accident that occurs on their premises unless the prosecution establishes that the person was in charge of the premises and that the accident was a re....
The prosecution under different statutes for distinct offences does not constitute double jeopardy. Lack of evidence for negligence is crucial in cases of criminal prosecution for causing death by ne....
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
