The prosecution must prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.

ORDER :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the Order dated 13.06.2012 passed by the State Industrial Court, Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.26/CGIRAct/IV/2011 whereby the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal while affirming the judgment dated 21.11.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.811/FA/2006/Factories Act/Fatal by the J.M.F.C-cum-Labour Court, Durg convicting the applicants under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948) and sentencing them till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default thereof, further they shall suffer SI for three months each.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that at the relevant time, the applicant No.1 was working as Executive Director (Works) and was in-charge of Sintering Plant Factory whereas the applicant No.2 was working as Deputy General Manager and was also in-charge of Sintering Plant-1 in Bhilai Steel Plant (in short, the B.S.P.). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.07.2006 the accident occurred, in which, one Kirtanlal Gond has died and during inspection of the Plant, Shri K.K.Dwivedi, Factory Inspector found that an accident had occurred at the Plant’s premises on 22.07.2006 in absence of proper safety measures. It was also found by him that the accused persons violated Section 7A(1) of the Act, 1948 as it is their responsibility to ensure the safety of every worker employed in the Factory and on the date of incident, no protective cover was installed on either side of moving end pulley of conveyor belt No.C-1, as result of such lapse on their part, Kirtanlal Gond, who was employed on that particular date, died after becoming entangled in the conveyor belt, which is also in violation of Clause vi (b) of Section 21(i) of the Act, 1948 and hence the applicants failed to perform their duties to ensure the safety of their workers. After such inspection, statements of the witnesses were recorded and then the applicants were issued show-cause notices on 25.07.2006, to which, both the applicants submitted their replies.

3. Not being satisfied by their replies, P.W.1 K.K.Dwivedi registered a case against them and consequently, a charge-sheet under Section 105 of the Act, 1948 was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C-cum-Labour Court, Durg. The applicants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined only one witness, namely, K.K.Dwivedi, Factory Inspector, Industries and Safety (P.W.1) in support of its case whereas, the applicants examined one Manager K.K.Yadav as D.W.1 in support of their defence. Statements of the applicants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

4. After appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned J.M.F.C. recorded the finding of conviction and sentence, which the Industrial Court upheld, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court, without appreciating the evidence available on record, is erroneous. He further submits that both the learned Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence of defence witness K.K.Yadav, Shift Manager, who was aware of the safety arrangements and in his cross-examination, he had clearly stated that there were properly employed safety and security measures and that, there was emergency switch too for stopping the conveyor belt and apart from such measures, there were rods attached to the tail end pulley for fencing and that, such rods were installed in such a way