Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA
Kishore Prasad Saraf S/O Lt. Kedar Nath Saraf – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual genesis of industrial accident case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. contention regarding factory safety compliance and definition of occupier liability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. assessment of evidence regarding machine installation and safety measures. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. interpretation of occupier liability under factories act section 2(n) and 92. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. final order upholding conviction and maintaining fine. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Heard Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 401/397 CrPC challenging the judgment and order dated 10.02.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh in Cri. Appeal No. 17(3)/2010 affirming the conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh vide judgment and order dated 16.08.2010, passed in G.R. Case No. 205c /2006.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 16.10.2005, the
Point of law : If an order is not obligatory to be passed under the statute, no appeal would lie against the offence alleged under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act as is alleged in the case at h....
The complaints were an abuse of process of court, as there was no violation of law and rules and regulations, and the complaints were filed belatedly. The non-mention of the show cause notice and its....
It is well settled that at stage of issuing process, Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in complaint or evidence led in support of same and Magistrate is only to be satisfied that t....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to safety regulations in factories, clarifying the applicability of the Factories Act even with fewer than ten workers, and addressing procedural errors....
The court held that only one director of a company can be prosecuted for violations under specific sections of the Factories Act, affirming a strict interpretation of legislative intent.
The importance of timely and reasoned responses to show cause notices and the implications of delayed replies in criminal prosecutions under the Factories Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, and the application of safety rules under the Factories Act.
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
