1. Seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.2627 of 2014 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, the petitioner who is the sole accused in the case, has come up with this petition.

2. The respondent has filed the said case by way of a private complaint alleging that the petitioner had committed offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Having regard to the legal issues involved in this case, Mr. A. Ragunathan, learned senior counsel was requested by this Court to act as Amicus Curiae and accordingly he has made his submissions as well.

4. The short facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows: Chennai Port Trust/Harbour, Chennai is admittedly a factory in terms of the Factories Act. The same has been registered as a factory under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner Mr. P. Shanmuganathan is the Chief Mechanical Engineer. The Chennai Port Trust submitted Form No.2 viz., "Application for Registration and Grant or Renewal of Licence for the year 2012 and Notice of Occupation specified under Sections 6 and 7" specified under Sections 3 & 7 of the said Act. In the said Form No.2, the petitioner Mr. P. Shanmuganathan, the Chief Mechanical Engineer has been specified as the 'occupier' of the factory viz., the Chennai Port Trust as per Section 2(n) of the Act. The petitioner was appointed by the Government of India under office order No.09/2011 dated 03.08.2011. The said appointment order has been made by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 24(1)(a) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner is a public servant removable only by the Central Government.

5. According to the respondent on 07.08.2012, the Headquarters Deputy Inspector of Factories made a surprise inspection of the Factory viz., Chennai Port Trust, during which, he found violation of Section 7(1) and Rule 12B (3) & (4), Sections 51 and 54 and Section 49(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950. These violations, according to the respondent, are offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Thus, for the above violations, the above prosecution was launched by way of a private complaint by the respondent.

6. In this petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that since the petitioner is a public servant removable only by the Central Government, the present prosecution launched against him without sanction from the Central Government as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal and thus, the order of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance followed by issuance of summons to the petitioner/accused is illegal and so the entire proceedings should be quashed, the learned counsel contended.

7. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that for prosecuting the petitioner, no such sanction is required in view of the specific provision contained in Section 105 of the Factories Act, which states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of an Inspector. He would submit that in the instant case, complaint was made by the Inspector of Factories as provided under Section 105 of the Factories Act and therefore, no separate sanction is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. In the alternative, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that assuming that such sanction is required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is curable and therefore for want of sanction the proceedings cannot be quashed.

9. The learned senior counsel Mr. A. Ragunathan, the Amicus Curiae, would submit that Section 105 of the