Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 1689
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
P. Abdul Wajid
Versus
The State, Rep., by Inspector of Factories, Division-II
Crl.O.P.No.10679 of 2009
Decided on: 11-06-2009
For the Petitioner:C.P. Sivamohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Paul Devakumar, Government Advocate (Crl side).
The occupier of a factory is responsible for complying with the provisions of the Factories Act, including obtaining necessary approvals and licenses.
Headnote:
Factories Act - Prosecution under Section 92 - Section 6(1), 4(1)(2)(3), Rule 12-B(5), Section 7(1), Rule 12 - Factories Act 1948 - [Section 6(1), Section 4(1)(2)(3), Rule 12-B(5), Section 7(1), Rule 12]
Fact of the Case:
The accused was prosecuted for violating provisions of the Factories Act 1948 related to manufacturing processes and documentation requirements. The accused claimed to be doing job work and not responsible for obtaining approvals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused, as the occupier of the factory, was responsible for obtaining necessary approvals and licenses as per the Factories Act. The court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused, as the occupier of the factory, was liable for the violations of the Factories Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused, as the occupier, was obligated to comply with the provisions of the Factories Act, including obtaining necessary approvals and licenses.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's contention.
1. The accused in C.C.No.11 of 2009 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore is the petitioner herein. The prosecution has been launched against the petitioner herein, for an offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 for the violation of the following provisions:
i) Section 6(1) of the Factories Act r/w 4(1) (2)(3) and Rule 12-B (5) of the Factories Rules,
ii) And Section 7(1) of the Factories Act r/w Rule 12 of the Factories Rules.
2. At the time of inspection by the Inspector of Factories on 012. 2008, he found that manufacturing process using power was going on with the engagement of 22 workers. The following violations were noted by the Inspector of Factories at the time of his inspection:
(i) Approval for the topo sketch cite plan and detailed plan had not been obtained,
(ii) Approval had not been obtained by submitting Form No.I and Form No.II,
(iii) And the documents required to be exhibited in the Factory were also not exhibited at the time of inspection by the Inspector of Factories.
3. After the notice issued by the Inspector of Facotries, Circle-II, Vellore, the petitioner herein gave a reply stating that he was neither a manager nor the owner of the factory premises and he was doing job work there in the factory premises which was inspected by the Inspector of Factories on 012. 2008. Not satisfied with the reply, the Inspector of Factories, Circle-II, Vellore submitted a complaint as per Section 105(1) of the Factories Act on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.11 of 2009 and process was issued to the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as the sole accused in the said case. As against the issue of process and seeking an order quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. The petitioner has come forward with the present petition under Section 482 Cr.Pc.
4. The submissions made by Mr.C.P.Sivamohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also by Mr.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) were heard. The affidavit filed in support of the petition and materials produced were also perused by this Court.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the very initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is obnoxious and against law as he is neither the manager nor the owner of the premises which was inspected by the complainant viz., Inspector of Factories, Circle-II, Vellore on 012. 2008. It is also his contention that he was doing job work viz., tanning in the said premises and hence, he could not be expected to get the approval of the documents pointed out supra. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the owner of the premises had leased out the factory premises to a third party and it was the third party M/s.Sarfaraz Niaz & Co. who was running the factory on lease; that all those documents with the necessary approval would be available only with them or the owner of the premises and that prosecuting the petitioner for his inability to produce those documents would not be proper in law. Though there is no such clear stand taken by the petitioner in his reply to the notice of the Inspector of Factories and in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was not even an occupier of the factory and hence, he could not be prosecuted for any of the offences cited in the complaint.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl side) representing the respondent would submit that the ownership of the premises used as factory or even the ownership of the machineries is quite irrelevant as the respondent herein has given complaint for the irregularities found by him at the time of inspection against the petitioner herein as the proprietor of Hermen Tanning Company which was using the said
