Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Hemant Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
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 wor
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....
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.
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.
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 prosecution must prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a manufacturing process for an organization to be considered a 'factory' under the Factories Act, 1948, and the absence of vi....
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
