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 not impose vicarious liability on company directors.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 24.01.2011, by which cognizance for the offence under Sections 278, 284, 337, 338, 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken, against the petitioners, in connection with Telco P.S. Case No. 116 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1150 of 2008, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

3. Telco P.S. Case No. 116 of 2008 was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of Pradip Chaudhary, S.I.-cum-Officer-in-charge with regard to the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 27.5.2008 stating therein that leakage of gas spread in the area from water plant situated near Truck park at Telco Colony and the people are being affected and feeling suffocation. The informant is alleged to have rushed to the place and took step for their treatment and sent them to Telco Main Hospital. The informant has further alleged that he enquired and found an enquiry that the gas was leaking from the said place. The Management of Tata Motors did not inform to the police authorities. According to the informant it was chlorine gas, which was leaking Chlorine gas was used to all the water plant but due to some negligence chlorine gas started leaking from the cylinder. The informant has further stated that section 7A of the Factories Act 1942 cast obligation on the plant occupier to maintain the plant so that nothing untoward happen. The FIR further says that the plant has been given by Tata Motors to Tata water Supply Maintenance to JUSCO and JUSCO had deputed their officer G.S. Basu and Toumy Bith, who are managing the water plant and it was also their responsibility to take and provide safety measure, which was not done by them. It has also been alleged that A.K. Patil, G.M. Manufacturing wing and S.K. Ghatak, Supervisor did not take proper step for safety. It has also been alleged that B.K. Sarkar, Manager, Water Supply also did not take proper step and hence the case was instituted against plant head S.B. Borwankar, S.K. Patil, Manoj Rai, B.K. Sarkar, S.K. Ghatak, B.S. Basu, Taumi Bith.

4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that M/s Tata Motors has installed a water purification plant under the factory, however, in view of Section 26 of the Factories Act, the name of occupier of the factory is required to be disclosed. He submits that the allegations are made that the occurrence has said to have taken place on 27.05.2008 at 10.00 A.M. with regard to leakage of chlorine gas from the premises of M/s Tata Colony Water Purification plant. He further submits that the liability has been fastened upon the petitioners, who are the Senior General Manager and Deputy General Manager respectively of the said company. He further submits that the Factories Act is a complete Code itself, however, the case has been registered under the penal sections of IPC, which is against the mandate of law and the cognizance has also not been taken under the provisions of IPC. He further submits that the case of the co-accused of this case has already been quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 1102 of 2011 by order dated 19.03.2012 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the company. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Maksud Saiyed Versus State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-13 held as follows:-

“13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. Indian Penal Co