Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Deepak Dokania S/o Shri Mahabir Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Salona Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent State including the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2013 and also the entire criminal proceeding in G.O. (Complaint) Case No. 251 of 2013, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.
3. The brief facts of the complaint case alleging therein that BMC Metal Cast Pvt. Ltd. is having factory situated at A-18 and 19, Adityapur Industrial Area at Saraikella Kharsawa and registered vide registration no. 24270/SBM and at the time of renewal of license at Form no. 2 the petitioner is one of the Director and another one Manager of the said factory. On 23.9.2013 one employee namely Tunna Tin met with an accident and got injury at the time of working and then he was admitted APEX hospital Baradwari, Jamshedpur. On receiving of information of accident the complainant inspected the factory premises on 24.9.2013 for finding out reasons of accident. One another person namely Bharat Shyamal Supervisor of said factory stated the occurrence to the complainant.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial interpretation in avoiding constructions that render statutory provisions devoid of meaning or application.
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 interpretation and application of relevant sections of the Factories Act, particularly Sections 97 and 111, are crucial in determining liability for workplace accidents.
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....
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 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....
Directors are not liable for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and related sections and rules.
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
