The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the time limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act in instituting criminal proceedings and the allocation of responsibilities to the contractor as per the work contract.

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with F.A. No. 01 of 2012 including the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act.

2. The prosecution story as would appear from the prosecution report filed by the Factories Inspector, Bokaro Circle No. 2, Bokaro, is that M/s HPCL New Depot Project, BIADA, Balidih, Bokaro is an unregistered factory, whose documents relating to the registration have not been submitted in the office of the Factories Inspector.

3. It has been stated that the construction work was being carried out at the site by different agencies, in which around 150 workers were engaged in construction of buildings and oil tanks. It has been alleged that on 3.4.2012, when work was being done at the southern corner of under construction plant by one Mukesh Kunwar Singh and Shri Pintu Kumar Singh under the supervision of Shri Atul Kumar, Site Engineer of M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mukesh Kunwar Singh was suddenly hit on the head by a steel column and resultantly he died. It has further been alleged that if there had been proper invigilation by the Management and if the worker had been from going to the place of accident, the incident might not have happened and in such circumstance the Management has violated the directions as given in Section 7A (2(c) of the Factories Act, 1948 and is also violative of Rule 55A (2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950.

4. Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Depot in question was not operational when the incident had taken place, as such the provisions of the Factories Act would not be applicable. It has been submitted that on 5.12.2012 much after the incident, application has been made by the Company, in which the petitioners are employed as Chief Regional Manager and Manager cum Project Incharge for Registration & Grant of Licence. It has further been submitted that the deceased Mukesh Kunwar Singh was an employee of M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., which was in the process of constructing the Depot. It has also been submitted that since no manufacturing process was being carried out in the place of incident, the same as such does not come within the definition of a 'Factory' and resultantly the Factories Act would not be applicable in such circumstances. Mr. Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the licence was granted for construction of civil buildings and sheds at HPCL Bokaro on 13.04.2007. He has further submitted that as per the general terms and conditions of the work contract, it has been specifically agreed upon that the owner has absolutely no liability whatsoever concerning the employees of the contractor. So far as the safety provisions are concerned, the agreement specifies that it is the contractor, who shall arrange for the safety provisions and shall also observe and abide by all fires and safety regulations of the owner. In such circumstance, therefore, it has been submitted that it is the contractor, who is responsible for the incident and the petitioners can never be considered to be responsible for the incident. Mr. Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the incident had taken place on 3.4.2012 and admittedly it came to the knowledge of the complainant on 4.4.2012 but the complaint was instituted on 22.08.2012, which is time barred under the provisions of Section 106 of the Factories Act.

6. Learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted that on coming to know about the incident, the complainant had taken steps for according of sanction by the authorities and only after the sanction for prosecution was accorded vide Memo No. 1572 dated 14.08.2012, the complainant has lodged t