Prashant Kumar, J.

This application has been filed for quashing order dated 3.12.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in F.A. Case No. 653 of 1999, whereby he took cognizance under Section 92 of Factory Act against petitioner.

2. It appears that Factory Inspector Dhanbad has filed a complaint on inspection of M/s Loyabad, Cooking Bye- Products Recovery Plant, Loyabad, alleging therein that lifting machines chains, ropes being used in the factory premises without annually examined by competent authority, which is violative of provisions of Section 29 of the Factory Act and Rule 56-A of Bihar Factory Rules 1950.

3. It appears that said complaint received in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 3.12.1999 and on the same day he took cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factory Act.

4. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being a director of the company can not be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factory Act, because he is not occupier within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the Factory Act. It is submitted that the person who manage the affairs of factory is occupier, therefore he can only be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factory Act. It is submitted that petitioner has not been appointed by Central Government as occupier of the factory, therefore order taking cognizance is bad. It is further submitted that order taking cognizance is also violative of Section 106 of the Factory Act.

5.On the other hand, Sri S. S. Prasad, learned Additional PP submits that petitioner has been appointed by Central Government as occupier which manifest from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Sri Prasad further submits that petitioner put his signature on Annexure-B as occupier of factory. Under the said circumstance, as per Section 92 of the Factory Act, petitioner can be prosecuted for violation of any of the provisions of the Factory Act and Rules framed thereunder.

6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record. Section 29 of the Factory Act reads as under:-

29. Lifting machines, chains, ropes and lifting tackles.- (1) In any factory the following provisions shall be complied with in respect of every lifting machine (other than a hoist and lift) and every chain, rope or lifting tackle for the purpose of raising or lowering persons, goods or materials:-

(a) all parts, including the working gear, whether fixed or movable, of every lifting machine and every chain, rope or lifting tackle shall be-

(i) of good construction, sound material and adequate strength and free from defects;

(ii) properly maintained; and

(iii) thoroughly examined by a competent person at least once in every period of twelve months, or at such intervals as the Chief Inspector may specify in writing; and a register shall be kept containing the prescribed particulars of every such examination;

(b) no lifting machine and no chain, rope or lifting tackle shall, except for the purpose of test be loaded beyond the safe working load which shall be plainly marked thereon together with an identification mark and duly entered in the prescribed register; and where this is not practicable, a table showing the safe working loads of every kind and size of lifting machine or chain, rope or lifting tackle in use shall be displayed in prominent positions on the premises;-

(c) while any person is employed or working on or near the wheel track of a travelling crane in any place where he would be liable to be struck by the crane, effective measures shall be taken to ensure that the crane does not approach within [six metres] of that place.

(2) The State Government may make rules in respect of any lifting machine or any chain, rope or lifting tackle used in Factory-

(a) prescribing further requirements to be complied with in addition to those set out in this section;

(b) providing for exemption from compliance with all or any of the requirements of this section, where in i