In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings, initiated as against the petitioners in connection, with C/2 Case No, 2903 of 2001, including the order dated 15.5.2001, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby cognizance was taken for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act and summons were directed to be issued against the petitioners.

2. The case arises out of Factories Act. An accident had taken place in the factory of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (now M/s Tata Steel Ltd.) for which the instant prosecution has been lodged citing the petitioner No.1 as the occupier.

3. The main ground of challenge in this quashing application is that petitioner, Dr. Jamshed J. Irani, ceased to be the 'Occupier' of the factory on the date of the accident, as such cognizance could not have been taken and this petitioner should not have been directed to face trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of occurrence is 22.2.2001. An application for transfer of the licence was already filed before the appropriate authority on 23.9.2000, signed by one T. Mukherjee, Director of the Company. Since the Factory Licence was for a period of one year term of which was coming to an end, the said T.Mukherjee, in the capacity of an 'Occupier' filed an application for renewal of the Factory Licence on 4.11.2000. All these applications were prior to the date of occurrence. He further submits that as the Factory Licence was renewed with effect from a date prior to the date of accident, it will clearly suggest that the authorities had accepted T. Mukherjee as the 'Occupier' and that being so, it will be deemed that this petitioner is absolved of his liabilities as an 'Occupier' and he cannot be proceeded against.

5. The State submits that the amended licence bearing Registration No. 2461/SBM was issued on 3.11.2001 under the provisions of Factories Act for the calendar year 2001. By referring to the said licence, which has been brought on record. it has been argued that though the licence was renewed giving it a continuity, but it has been specifically mentioned there that the 'Occupier' is Dr.Tridibesh Mukherjee (with effect from 19.7.2001), which is a date after the accident had taken place. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the authorities under the Factories Act have acknowledged 'Dr. Tridibesh Mukheree' as 'Occupier' with effect from 19.7.2001, which means the petitioner 'Dr. Jamshed J. Irani' remained and was recognized as an 'Occupier' till 18.7.2001. Since the accident had taken place on 22.2.2001, the liability as an 'Occupier' will fall upon this petitioner only. Learned counsel submits that, the licence was issued on 2.11.2001 with the aforesaid endorsement, which was accepted, and now after 16 years it is not open for anyone to challenge the said recording.

6. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The main ground taken by the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was not the 'Occupier' and thus, cannot be prosecuted under the Factories Act. The only issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner is whether the petitioner No.1 was the 'Occupier' on the date of accident or it is 'Dr. T. Mukherjee' who was the 'Occupier'. The question to determine as to who is the 'Occupier' of a Factory is ordinarily a question of fact. In a jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot decide as to who is the 'Occupier' of the Factory on a particular date. On one hand, the Factory Licence clearly suggests that the Department had accepted 'Dr. T. Mukherjee' as an 'Occupier' with effect from 19.7.2001, whereas the counsel for the petitioner has referred to several documents, which have been filed by the Company for renewing the licence of the factory claiming 'Dr. T Mukherjee' as the 'Occupier'. Since a question of fact has been raised relying on documents by both the parties, these documents need to