Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Hemant Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. In this petition the prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 18.01.2012 in connection with Chandil P.S. Case No.69 of 2008, G.R.No.274 of 2008 lodged under sections 285, 287 and 304(A) of the IPC pending in the court of learned SDJM, Saraikela.
2. The FIR was registered alleging therein that on 22.4.2008 around 12.00 p.m., the informant along with other labourers were working in the premises of the company i.e. Narsingh Ispat Private Limited. The diesel tanker which is established inside the premises of the company blasted due to unknown reason and due to which fire broke out in and around the tanker area, owing to which a labour who was working in the premises caught onto fire and was burnt whose name was Anadi Mahto. Since he was injured the others labour who were in the premises took him to MGM Hospital, where he was admitted and further treatment was provided to him, but he died during treatment at and around 2.00 p.m.
3. Mr. Nitin Pasari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that charge sheet was submitted on 30.12.2011 under section 285, 287 and 304 (A) of the IP
The interpretation of the applicability of the Factory Act and the sections of IPC to the accident that occurred in a factory premises was the central legal point established in the judgment.
Special legislation prevails over general law when dealing with specific occurrences, and the Factories Act's provisions take precedence over general criminal law.
Special legislation prevails over general law when there are specific provisions for a particular cause of action.
Provision of Section 92 of Factories Act, it is clear that Factories Act is not a part of general penalty law but arise out of a breach of a duty provided in it - Offence punishable under Factories A....
When a special legislation with specific provisions exists, it prevails over the general law, and the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code may not be warranted.
Concurrent prosecutions under the IPC and Factories Act for the same incident are permissible as the laws address different legal elements and liabilities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Factories Act, liability can only be fastened on persons looking into the day-to-day affairs of the company, and the Penal Code does....
A person cannot be held criminally liable for an accident that occurs on their premises unless the prosecution establishes that the person was in charge of the premises and that the accident was a re....
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
