JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Ms. Surabhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 18.05.2015 arising out of and in connection with G.O. No. 100/12 filed under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela.

4. The complaint was filed by the Factory Inspector, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Circle-2, Saraikela alleging therein that the accused persons have contravened the provisions of sub-section 2(a) and 2(c) of Section 7-A of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 55(A)(2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950:

(i) By allowing the owner of the van to drive the van in reverse direction on a narrow approach road, who was not a regular driver and who was in a hurry to finish the job as soon as possible, so that he can go to his house and drop his daughter to the examination centre that also without any helper or signal man, and without a mirror especially on the left side of the van.

(ii) By not imparting proper training to the contractor workers and by not supervising the jobs done by them or their agencies/contractors and by not making strict and smart supervision of the work which was going inside the factory premises.

(iii) By allowing Shri Shrawan Kumar Sharma to give direction to the driver in an unsafe manner while unsafe condition was prevailing there, as a result of which, Sri Shrawan, contract labour met with an accident on 13.03.2012.

The complaint was forwarded by the Factory Inspector to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela with a request to take cognizance under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of sub-section 2(a) and 2(c) of Section 7-A of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 55(A)(2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.

5. Ms. Surabhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not an occupier and she was working as Managing Director of the Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Limited. She further submits that the word occupier is defined under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, which provides that occupier of a factory means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory provided that in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, any one of the individual partners or members thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier. By way of referring page 60 of the petition, which is Form No. 17-A by which it is required to disclose the name of occupier, she submits that in Form No. 17-A, the name of occupier is disclosed as Dilip Kumar Sarkhel and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, who was the Managing Director of the said Federation. She also submits that the accident was not taken place in the premises of the Factory or Federation. The accident took place due to laches on the part of the deceased. She further submits that the petitioner is a Government official and the protection in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is there and without obtaining any sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. the case has been instituted against the petitioner. She also submits that as per the judgment in case of J.K. Industries Ltd. vs. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665, certain provisions of the Factories Act are required to be looked into in its entirety in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable for such irregularity or not. She draws attention of the Court towards Sections 97 and 1