JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro in Factory case No. 01 of 2011 whereby and where under the learned C.J.M. Bokaro has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 against these petitioners. It has been pointed out that the petitioner no. 1- Nigam Chandra Bahl is the occupier and petitioner no. 2- D.P. Banerjee, is the Manager of the factory M/S Electrosteel Steels Ltd. Siyaljori, Chandankyari, district-Bokaro and the allegation against them is that on 14.10.2010 from the under constructed S.M.S of factory premises one workman Vasisht Mahatha fell down during the work from High Bay Structural Platform by which he died and after the said incident the statement of the co-workers were recorded. It was alleged that the factory premises was unsafe and dangerous and no step was taken for the railing and fencing of the same, therefore, the deceased workman fell down from the under constructed high Bay platform and he died. It has also been alleged that the said workman was not provided the safety belts by the occupier and the Manager of the factory and as such it has been alleged against this petitioner that there was a violation of section 33 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948 which is an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and accordingly, the detailed prosecution report was submitted before the Court of C.J.M., Bokaro by which the C.J.M., Bokaro took the cognizance against these two petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act vide order dated 04.01.2011 which is under challenge.

3. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no question of any violation of section 33 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and as such no offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been committed by the petitioners because the prosecution has failed to appreciate that the place of incident where the work was being carried out does not fall within the ambit of factory as defined under the Factories Act, because no manufacturing process was going on at the relevant point of time in the factory premises which was under construction site of SMS (Steel Melting Shop) which is an admitted fact.

4. In this view of matter, it is submitted that the place of work where the dangerous occurrence happened is not within the meaning of factory premises to invoke the provisions of Section 33 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and there is no question of commission of any offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.

5. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners confined his contention to the fact that there is no violation of Section 33 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act will not apply because the place of occurrence is neither covered under the definition of the factories as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act nor anything was manufacturing within the meaning of manufacturing process which is defined under Section 2 (K) of the Factories Act, 1948 and, therefore, the offence as alleged is not tenable in the eyes of law.

6. In support of the contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in (2016) 10 SCC 329 in the case of Lanco Anpara Power Limited Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties filed the counter and submitted that it is wrong to say that the place of occurrence is not covered within the definition of factory as said the factory in question namely M/S Electrosteel Steels Ltd. district Bokaro was a registered factory since 22.12.2009 and the accident had taken place inside the factory premises where the activities