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 considered before initiating criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.06.2014, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with G.O. No. 124 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

3. The prosecution story as has been narrated in the Complaint is that in terms of the telephonic information received from Sri Manjunath Banjatri, S.D.M, Chandil, about the accident occurred in the factory premises M/s. Narsingh Ispat Pvt. Ltd., the Factory Inspector, Bharat Bhushan Singh went to M/s. Narsingh Ispat Pvt. Ltd., on 31.03.2014 for inspection and while carrying out the inspection, it was found that on 30.03.2014 @ 9:00 P.M., when a dumper carrying the Lime Stone was moving in the reverse mode for unloading the same in the Ground Hopper, four workers who were resting near the Ground Hopper, came under the grip of the dumper, resultantly out of the four workers, three died and one was injured.

After inspection, vide letter dated 01.04.2014, the O.P. No. 2, directed the petitioners to produce certain documents concerning the statutory compliances in terms of Factories Act, 1948.

After the inspection was completed, the inspection report was even prepared on 02.05.2014, by the O.P. No. 2, in terms whereof, following irregularities were alleged to have been found, viz.,:

(1) Security Guards/ Conductors were not deployed near the ramp violating the provisions of section 7A (b) of the Act of 1948 read with Rule 55-A (2) of the Rules, 1950.

(ii) Shelter Room was not found at any place in the factory premises violating the provisions of section 47 of the Act of 1948 read with Rule 72 of the Rules, 1950.

(iii) Violation of Rule 102 of the Rules, 1950, by not cooperating in inspection proceedings.

The Inspection report dated 02.05.2014 was sent through Registered Post and the petitioners were asked to appear before the competent authority with the entire documents.

Since, certain documents as was sought for was produced, however, some of the documents were not produced and purported violations were not rectified, hence, the complaint was forwarded on 19.06.2014 under the signature of the Factory Inspector, Bharat Bhushan Singh (O.P. No.2).

4. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is the Director and petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of M/s Narsingh Ispat Pvt. Ltd. He further submits that the accident took place within the premises, however there is clear instruction that near the ramp / ground hopper, the labourers were restricted to move or to rest, however, in spite of the said instruction, the labourers were gone there to rest and due to accident, three labourers were died at the spot and one has received grievous injuries. He further submits that for the alleged accident, the petitioners, being the Director and Manager of the said company have unnecessarily been dragged in the case.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Sarav Investment and Financial Consultancy (P) Ltd. Versus Lloyds Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 753 and also in the case of Visitor AMU and Ors. Versus K.S. Misra, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 593, wherein in para-13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“13. The problem can be looked from another angle. If the view taken by the High Court that the provision is directory is accepted as correct, it would in effect amount to making the provisions of sub-clause (c) of Statute 61(6)(iv) otiose. In such a case the consequences provided therein that if no option is exercised within the prescribed time limit, the employee shall b