JUDGMENT :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioners are accused in Criminal Complaint No.946/2022. The petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 29.9.2022 whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under section 7A, 21 and 41 of the FACTORIES ACT , 1948 read with Rule 65(E) and 65(F) of the RAJASTHAN FACTORIES RULES , 1951 (in short "the Rules of 1951").

2. The challenge is on the ground that the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken are not made out as well as on the ground that the mandates of the FACTORIES ACT were not followed before recommending for and filing complaint case.

3. The uncontroverted facts of the case are that Shriram Pistons and Rings Limited is a manufacturer and trader of pistons and rings etc. One of its Unit is running in the RIICO Industrial Area, Pathredi, Near Chopanki/Bhiwadi, District Alwar. In February, 2022, Mr. Rajnish Chauhan was appointed as Senior Associate Engineer-III in the maintenance department considering his educational qualification and experiences. On 30.5.2022, Mr. Chauhan was on his duty. He was informed that there is a breakdown of DCT Machine-17 and requires repair. Mr. Chauhan in presence of factory supervisor Krishan Kumar was engaged in carrying out the gap adjustment on the said machine with an Allen Key. As a matter of chance, Allen Key slipped off and fell down. Mr. Chauhan tried to take the key out. In doing so, the hand of Mr. Chauhan got trapped between the conveyor body and moving parts. Mr. Chauhan sustained permanent damage to the fingers. It was negligence on the part of Mr. Chauhan that without turning off the motion belt, he attempted to take out the key. Though there were warning instructions "do not put hands into the machine during operation". After due treatment, cost whereof was borne by the company, Mr. Chauhan reported to his duty on 25.8.2022. On 3.6.2022 respondent No.2, the Chief Inspector of Factories, was informed about the accident in view of provision of Rule 101 of the Rules of 1951. On 30.6.2022, respondent No.2 inspected the factory and recorded that there was no security cover on the front side of the said machine covering the area of 6 inch height x 2 feet 3 inch length and 1.5 width. However, respondent No.2 recorded in the inspection note that on the date of inspection, the same was already covered. The inspection report aforesaid is the basis of the impugned complaint.

4. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners submits that section 9 of the FACTORIES ACT , 1948 requires that an Inspector may enter, with such assistants, being persons in the service of the Government, or any local or other public authority, or with an expert as he thinks fit, any place which is used, or which he has reason to believe is used, as a factory. The inspector may inquire into any accident or dangerous occurrence, whether resulting in bodily injury, disability or not, and take on the spot or otherwise statements of any person which he may consider necessary for such inquiry.

Learned Sr. Advocate contends that the Senior Inspector inspected the factory and the machine concerned without taking assistance of the referred persons, especially the expert who is competent to say whether safety measures were taken by the management or not. Learned Sr. Advocate has placed reliance on judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shiv Singh Mehta & Anr. v. State of M.P., reported in (2016) SCCOnlineMP 7522. In Mehta's case (supra), compliance of requirement of Section 9 of the Act was c