The main legal point established is that under the Factories Act, previous sanction is necessary for taking cognizance of offences, but once sanction is obtained, no further sanction is necessary to include others as accused in the same case.

This revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram in C.M.P.No.832 of 2007 adding the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1 of 2006.

2. The Inspector of Factories, Villupuram, had filed a complaint against the accused Palaniappan, who was the Manager of the Chengalvarayan Co-op. Sugar Mills, for an alleged offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. There was a fatal accident on 16.03.2005 in the sugar factory and a worker by name Ravi Rajan died. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, had inspected the factory on 18.03.2005 and issued show cause notice to the accused Palaniappan and also to the petitioner herein. On receiving explanation, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, had accorded sanction to file a complaint against the accused Palaniappan. Then, the Inspector of Factories, Villupuram, had filed a complaint only against the accused Palaniappan. In the trial Court on 27.11.2006, Mr.Sambandam, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, was examined as P.W.1. On 12.03.2007, again he was recalled and examined. On 21.03.2007, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Villupuram, had filed a memo under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for adding the petitioner herein as an accused. On 09.07.2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, had passed an order allowing the application filed by the prosecution and ordered to issue summons to the petitioner herein.

3. Mr.S.Vadivelu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that under Section 105(1) of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), sanction was accorded only to the accused Palaniappan, who was the Manager of the Factory and as such, without any sanction being accorded to prosecute the petitioner herein, the Court has got no competence to include the revision petitioner herein as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 497 (Dilawar Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh and another). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the revision petitioner cannot be included as an accused and the evidence of P.W.1 has not been completed, since P.W.1 has not been cross examined. The learned counsel further pointed out that by merely filing a memo to implicate the petitioner herein as an accused, the Court is not empowered to invoke the provision under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and to include the petitioner as an accused no specific reason is mentioned in the order allowing the memo filed by the prosecution. The learned counsel submitted that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised only in extraordinary situation.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the complaint has been filed by the Inspector of Factories and as such, no previous sanction is necessary for the Court to take cognizance as per Section 105 of the Act and the sanction already obtained may be due to abundant caution. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that even if the sanction is to be obtained as per Section 105 of the Act, once the sanction is granted and the Court takes cognizance of the offence under the Act, no further sanction is necessary to include the others as an accused, since cognizance of the offences had already been taken by the Court. It is also submitted that show cause notice was issued both (1) to the accused-Palaniappan, who was the Manager of the Factory and (2) to the revision petitioner, who was the Administrator of the Factory. He being the Administrator of the Factory becomes the occupier of the Factory as per the definition of Section 2(n) of the Act. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that even if the complainant is not including the revision petitioner as an accused