R.R. Prasad, J.
Binod Kumar Das And Anr.
versus
State Of Jharkhand And Anr.
Cri. M.P. No. 266 of 2006
Decided on : 27-11-2007
Section 304 - Factories Act, 1948 - Section 92, Section 105 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 92 and Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948, and their overriding effect on the general law under Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the allegations in the First Information Report fell within the ambit of the Factories Act, and therefore, the special legislation prevailed over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a First Information Report under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code registered against the petitioners and others for an accident resulting in the death of two persons while cleaning the Bins in the Sinter Plant area.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR were covered under the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act, which had overriding effect on the general law under Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the FIR was quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the FIR fell within the ambit of the Factories Act, 1948, and if the special legislation prevailed over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Factories Act, particularly Section 92 and Section 105, stipulated the manner of investigation, enquiry, and trial of offences falling within the Act, and therefore, the special legislation prevailed over the general law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the First Information Report of Bistupur P.S. case No. 49 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 409 of 2006, so far as the petitioners were concerned.
R.R. Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report of Bistupur P.S case No. 49 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. case No. 409 of 2006 whereby the case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioners and others.
3. Before adverting to contention raised on behalf of the petitioners the facts of the case needs to be noted which are as follows: It appears that one Jadunath Soren lodged first information report on 21.2.2006 stating therein that one M/s H.K. Singori and Company was assigned a job by the Management of TISCO for cleaning the Bins in the Sinter Plant area and that he as well as other two persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Dhal and Sukhdeo Karkamar being employees of the said M/s H.K. Singori and Company were asked to clean the Bins and while they were cleaning wall of the Bins the column of dust gave in, as a result of which it fell upon the two persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Dhal and Sukhdeo Karkamar and both of them died. Thereupon, a case was registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No.1, Chief of the plant and petitioner No. 2, Head of the Plant and also against other accused persons.
4. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have come before this Court where by they have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation made in the first information report is covered under the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act which is penal in nature and the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 being a special legislation will have overriding effect upon the provisions of general law and, therefore, any prosecution under the general law is not permissible and hence the First Information Report is fit to be quashed.
6. I do find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with the matter regarding investigation and enquiry of the case failing under the Indian Penal Code or any special Act which reads as under:
Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code and other laws-
(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (46 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
7. Thus Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Code provides that in absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in the code shall affect any special or local law for the time being in force. However the conjoint effect of that provision and Sub-section (2) of Section 4 would be as follows:
1. That all offences, whether under the penal code or under any other law, have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code.
2. This rule is subject to qualification that in respect of offences under other laws that is to say, under laws other than Indian Penal Code, if there be an enactment regulating the manner of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences, such enactment will prevail over the code.
3. The provisions of special or local law will prevail over the provisions contained in the Code unless there is specific provisions to the contrary.
8. Having taken notice of the provision of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would be pertinent to take notice of Section 92 of the Factories Act so as to be ascertained as to whether allegation made in the First Inf
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.