Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1867
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The State rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras - Appellant
Versus
N.V. Unnikrishnan, Occupier, M/s. AVN Ayurveda Formulation Pvt. Ltd., Madurai - Respondent
Crl.A(MD) No. 261 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2018
For the Appellant :A. Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
For the Respondent:G. Manivannan, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the occupier to provide necessary fire safety precautions as prescribed under the Factories Act and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, and the onus on the occupier to explain non-compliance with safety measures.
Headnote:
Factories Act - Fire Safety Measures - Section 38(3), Rule 61(4)(a), Rule 61(10)(a), Section 92 - The court found the occupier of the factory guilty of failing to comply with fire safety measures as prescribed under the Factories Act and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules. The court highlighted the provisions of the Act and the Rules, emphasizing the duty of the occupier to provide necessary precautions to avoid fire accidents. The court also discussed the onus on the occupier to explain the reasons for non-compliance with safety measures, as well as the validity of inspection reports conducted after accidents.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint against the factory owner was based on a fire accident caused by the storage of inflammable materials and electrical wiring defects. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing lack of proper inspection and failure to prove the cause of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Trial Court's reasoning for acquitting the accused to be erroneous and illegal, emphasizing the violation of safety rules by the factory owner and the failure to provide necessary precautions as required by the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court failed to appreciate the law and facts in proper perspective while acquitting the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the occupier's failure to comply with fire safety measures as prescribed under the Factories Act and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, along with the duty to explain non-compliance, warranted the reversal of the Trial Court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal against acquittal was allowed, and the order of the Trial Court was set aside. The matter was posted for further proceedings regarding the accused's sentence.
1. The complaint of the Inspector of Factories, Madurai against the proprietor of M/s.AVN Ayurveda Formulation Private Limited was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in S.T.C.No.25 of 2014, dated 30.06.2014, State has preferred this appeal.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 24.08.2013, the Joint Director, Industrial Safety and health, Madurai inspected the factory premises of M/s.AVN Ayurveda Formulation Private Limited at No.175-A, Villachery Main Road, Muniyandipuram, Pasumalai Post, Madurai, owned by N.V. Unnikrishnan. On that day early morning at about 03.20 a.m., there was a fire accident in the raw material godown of the said factory. The inspection of the Joint Director revealed that inflammable material like tolune and isoprophyl alcohol were stored in the raw material godown. The electrical wire were not drawn through conduit pipe. They were hanging loose. The switch board was not provided with earth leakage circuit breaker or miniature circuit breaker. Vapourisation of the inflammable materials stored and electrical leak due to loose wiring were found to be the cause of the fire accident, resulting in damage of goods worth Rs.97 lakhs.
3. Based on the report, the Deputy Director has preferred a private complaint otherwise than a police report by a public servant. The substance of the complaint prima facie would indicate that the raw material godown of M/s.AVN Ayurveda Formulation Private Limited was not equipped with fire fighting instruments. Due to failure of providing fire protection equipments, like, automatic sprinkler and hydrant and due to storing inflammable materials, the wire which was not drawn through conduit pipe had caused electrical short circuit leading to damage of goods worth Rs.97 lakhs. Had the factory owner taken sufficient precaution by providing automatic sprinkler and hydrant, the accident would have been averted. For failure to take precautionary measures as provided under Section 38(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 61(4)(a) and Section 38(3) read with Rules 61(10)(a) and 13 of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, complaint was lodged after issuing show cause notice.
4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai took cognizance for offence under Section 38(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 61(4)(a) and Section 38(3) read with Rules 61(10)(a) and 13 of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and made over to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai tried the case for the said offence against N.V. Unnikrishnan, the owner of M/s.AVN Ayurveda Formulation Private Limited.
5. Before the Trial Court, the complainant has examined two witnesses, namely, Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Madurai and Joint Director, Industrial Safety and Health. 18 exhibits were marked on behalf of the complainant.
6. Mr. V.A. Appavoo Samraj who conducted the inspection of the godown immediately after the fire accident, examined as P.W.2. Based on his inspection report (Ex.P.3), show cause notice (Ex.P.10) issued to the occupier of the premises. In response to the show cause notice, the occupier has given his reply (Ex.P.14). P.W.2 had recorded the statements of Thiru.Raja and Thiru.Govindasamy, the boiler operator and shift operator employed in the said factory. Since his investigation revealed contravention of the Factories Act provision, sanction to prosecute has been sought and obtained. The sanction to prosecute accorded by the Additional Director, Factories Safety and Health is Ex.P.18. Mr. P.N. Sankar (P.W.1) has prosecuted the complaint.
7. The Trial Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint under Section 105 of the Factories Act, had found that the factory is running for five years and no co
