M.B. SHARMA, J.—Proposition of law canvassed by Mr. Bapna, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in this case is that in view of the words "save as is otherwise expressly provided in the Act" in Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 (for short the Act) the occupier of the factory cannot be convicted for contravention of the offence under Section 88 of the Act.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above proposition of law canvassed by Mr. Bapna are these:-

3. On 7th June, 1984 one Shri Rajendra Nayar, worker was working in the factory M/s. Mohan Enterprises Rajasthan (P.) Ltd., Jaipur. While he was working the ceiling fan in the packing room fell down causing injury to Shri Rajendra Nayar and he received three stitches. The said worker was present for working for the period of 8 hours or more immediately following the accident. The Manager of the factory at the relevant time was one J.K. Nandwana. The said Manager under Section 88(1) of the Act was required to send notice of the accident to such authorities and in such form as may be prescribed. No such notice was sent under Sub-section (1) of Section 88 or under the rules framed therein. A complaint was filed by the Inspector Factories & Boilers Zone, I, Jaipur against the above named accused Sah Sanjeev Kumar, one of the Directors of M/s. Mohan Enterprises Rajasthan (P) Ltd.

4. An objection was raised on behalf of the above named Director before the learned Magistrate that the cognizance of an offence under Section 92 of the Act could not be taken against him. The learned Magistrate under his order dated November 15, 1985 dismissed the application.

5. The contention of Mr. Bapna, learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that under Section 88 of the Act where in any factory an accident occurs which causes death, or which causes any bodily injury by reason of which the person injured is prevented from working for a period of forty-eight hours or more immediately following the accident, or which is of such nature as may be prescribed in this behalf, the manager of the factory shall send notice thereof to such authorities, and in such form and within such time, as may be prescribed. No duly is cast on the occupier of the factory and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for contravention of Section 88 of the Act under Section 92 of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Section 92 of the Act, corresponds to Section 60 of the Act of 1934. The Section provide "Save as it otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of Section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction with a further fine which may extend to seventy-five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued". The rulings under that Section have no relevance. Section 92 of the Act provides General Penalty for offence if in or in respect of any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder Both the occupier and manager of the factory each is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued Even if under Section 88 of the Act it is the duty of the Manager of the factory to send notice thereof to such authorities, and in such form and within such time, as may be prescribed, where in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document