Directors exercising ultimate control over a factory are deemed occupiers and are strictly liable for failing to implement mandatory safety measures or for operating machinery without statutory approval. Concurrent findings by lower courts regarding such breaches will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly perverse or illegal.

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. 205^c /2006.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 16.10.2005, the workman Dukhiram Lohar while was doing the work of feeding green tea leaves into the Rotervane machine on first bent of C.T.C., in Jalan Nagar South Tea Estate Factory fell down inside the said Rotervane machine and died immediately. The matter was immediately informed to the Inspector of Factories, who made an enquiry and accordingly came to the conclusion that the occupier and the manager did not take any measure for covering or fencing the open space of the floor under which the Rotervane machine was installed and as a result of which the worker Dukhiram Lohar fell down and died.

4. Thereafter, the Inspector of Factories filed his Offence Report before the learned CJM, Dibrugarh and accordingly a complaint was registered under Complaint Case No. 205^c /2006.

5. The petitioners being the Occupier and Manager, after the death of the deceased had paid Rs. 1,39,614/- to the wife and dependents of the deceased under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act and funeral expenses of the deceased were also paid to the wife of the deceased. More so, wife of the deceased was also given employment in the Tea Estate.

6. The Court accordingly took cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act and also under Rule 3 of Sub Section 6(1) and Section 32(a) and Section 33(1) of the Factories Act against the petitioners. On receipt of summons they accordingly appeared before the Court and the particulars of offence was also explained to the accused petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During trial, the prosecution has examined four witnesses and defence also adduced the evidence of two witnesses. Petitioners were also examined under Section 313 CrPC to which they have also pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, hearing the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 16.08.2010 had convicted the petitioners under Section 92 of the Factories Act and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for 2 years along with a payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- each.

8. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order passed by the learned CJM, Dibrugarh, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, which was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh which was reregistered and numbered as Crl. A. No. 17(3)/2010. After hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 10.02.2012 affirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to the extent for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- each by the petitioners.

9. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Appell