Back
2013 Supreme(Jhk) 27
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
R.R. PRASAD, J.
Binod Kumar Mittal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Opp. party
Cri. M.P. No.1165 of 2012
Decided on : January 7, 2013
M.M. Sharma and K.M. Verma, for the petitioner.
Tapas Kabiraj, APP, for the State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that special legislation, such as the Factories Act, prevails over general law in cases where it specifically regulates the offences and penalties related to the subject matter.
Headnote:
Factories Act - Cognizance - Section 92, Section 105 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 287 and 304(A)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a factory manager, was charged under Sections 287 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code for the death of a worker in a factory accident. The petitioner argued that the Factories Act, being a special legislation, should prevail over the general law and that prosecution under the general law was not permissible.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegation made in the First Information Report fell within the ambit of Section 92 of the Factories Act. It also noted that the Factories Act stipulated the manner in which offences under it should be dealt with, and therefore, the special legislation provision would prevail over the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution under the general law for the factory accident was permissible, considering the existence of the Factories Act as a special legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 92 and Section 105 of the Factories Act, which clearly outlined the penalties for contravention and the manner in which offences under the Act should be dealt with. It held that the special legislation provision of the Factories Act would prevail over the general law, making the prosecution under the general law impermissible.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceeding under the Indian Penal Code, Sections 287 and 304(A) for the factory accident, citing the Factories Act as a special legislation that should prevail.
By the Court.-Heard learned counsel appealing for the petitioner and learned counsel appealing for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 8.3.2011 whereby and whereunder the then Chief, Judicial Magistrate. Seraikella-Kharsawan took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 287 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears that one Janmajay @ Jarmendra Manjhi who was working in M/s. Mohit Deo Flour Mill died when he met with an accident on 24.8.2010 while he was working in the factory. When such information was given to the Factory inspector he visited the Flour Mill. He having enquired into the matter found that since the plant shifter had not been fenced and that the work was being taken over that machine without there being any supervision of supervisor accident took place in which the deceased died.
4. On coming to such finding a complaint was lodged which was registered as G.P. No. 125 of 2010 in which cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act was taken vide order dated 23.11.2010.
5. In spite of that for the same incident an F.I.R was lodged which was registered as Adityapur P.S. Case No. 247 of 2010 wherein it has been alleged that Factory Manager without providing safety belt, shoes etc. asked the deceased worker to do work over the machine and while he - was doing the work he fell down and died.
6. The matter was investigated upon. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 287 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner who happens to be the Manager of the Factory, vide order dated 8.3.2011 which is under challenge.
7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that whatever allegation is there in the F.I.R. that would be the subject matter for prosecution under the Factories Act and the Factories Act. 1948 being a special legislation will have overriding effect upon the provisions of the general law and therefore any prosecution under the general law is not permissible and hence the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed.
8. A counter-affidavit has been mea wherein it has been reiterated that since the deceased was allowed to work without providing safety measures occurrence took place and therefore the petitioner can be said to have committed offence under Sections 287 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
9. In the context of the stand taken on behalf of the parties one needs to take notice of the provision as contained - in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the matter regarding investigation and enquiry of the case falling tinder the Indian Penal Code or any Special Act which reads as under :
"Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code and other law :-
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."
10. 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 on force. However, the conjoint effect of that provision and subsection (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 inv
