Back
NAVNEET KUMAR
Dhirendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter.
2. This Cr.M.P. is directed against the order taking cognizance dated 27.10.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 pending in the concerned court of Sri S.K. Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad or his successor.
3. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP Mr. Ravi Prakash appearing on behalf of the State.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegation has been made by the opposite parties against the petitioners that on 5.08.2011, an accident took place within the factory premises at Unit No. 13, when the left hand of Sri Murari Singh, Mechanical fitter was caught in between the running tandem drum and conveyor belt causing serious injury to the left hand and middle finger of the right hand and thereafter an enquiry was conducted and finally an enquiry report dated 06.09.2011 was issued to all the concerned vide memo No.119 dated 07.09.2011 and the said enquiry report reveal
Liability under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 is determined based on the definition of 'Occupier' and 'Manager' as per Section 2(n) of the Act.
Directors are not liable for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and related sections and rules.
Directors exercising ultimate control over a factory are deemed occupiers and are strictly liable for failing to implement mandatory safety measures or for operating machinery without statutory appro....
The interpretation and application of relevant sections of the Factories Act, particularly Sections 97 and 111, are crucial in determining liability for workplace accidents.
The court highlighted the importance of considering the obligations of workers and the liability of the occupier and manager under the Factories Act before initiating criminal proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act is invoked only when the manufacturing process in the factory has commenced.
The main legal point established is that the Director and Manager cannot be held responsible for an accident without evidence of their involvement, and key provisions of the Factories Act must be con....
Point of law : If an order is not obligatory to be passed under the statute, no appeal would lie against the offence alleged under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act as is alleged in the case at h....
Mens rea is not a necessity in invoking the provisions of the Factories Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
