The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, and the application of safety rules under the Factories Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 20.07.2018 made in C.A.No.4/2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Ariyalur as confirming the judgment dated 08.02.2017 made in C.C.No.5/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ariyalur and set aside the same.)

1. The Revision Petitioner is the Proprietor-cum-Manager of Gugan Fire Works, engaged in manufacturing fire crackers. On 07/03/2016 at about 1.15 p.m., fire broke in the factory by which two persons employed under the petitioner died. On hearing the incident, the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Ariyalur inspected the premises on 08/03/2016 and caused notice to the petitioner. On being not satisfied with the explanation, a complaint lodged for violation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948.

2. As per the complaint, on 07/03/2016, in violation of the Act and Rules, out of four male workers employed in the cracker manufacturing unit of the accused, two of them by name Ravi and Anbu were allowed to work in the uneven mud floor, instead of the room meant for manufacturing. While they were mixing and grinding the chemicals, fire broke and those two employees sustained severe injuries. They were admitted at Tanjore Medical College Hospital for treatment. However, they succumbed to the injuries and lost breath on 11/03/2016.

3. Prosecution was launched for three distinct violations of safety Rules under the Factories Act, 1948. They are:-

The accused being the Proprietor-cum-Manager of the factory failed to provide the necessary safety measures in his Factory. He did not send the employees to safety training. He failed to submit Report about the accident in the format prescribed within 12 hours from the time of accident and he failed to insure his employees. Hence, he committed offences punishable (i) under Sections 7A (1) (2) and 41 of Factories Act, 1948 ( as amended in 1987) r/w 61 F of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950. (ii) under Section 88 A of the Factories Act, 1948 ( as amended in 1987) r/w Rule 96(1)(2) of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950 and (iii) under Section 87 of the Factories Act, 1948 ( As amended in 1987) r/w Rule 95 Schedule XXIV Article 12A of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution relied on the testimony of (PW-1)Complainant-Kavitha, Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Dindigul and 17 documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. The accused examined his two other surviving employees and also mounted the witness box. Two (2) receipts for paying compensation to the victim families were marked as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2.

5. The trial Court on weighing the evidence held the accused guilty of the offences under Section 7 A (1)(2), 41, 88A and 87 of the Factories Act 1948 ( as amended in 1987) r/w Rule 61F, 96(1)(2) and 95 Sch. XXIV Art. 12 A of Tamil Nadu Factories Act 1950 and sentenced the accused to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence under Sections 7A(1)(2) and 41 of Factories Act, 1948 (as amended in 1987) r/w 61 F of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950; to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 88 A of the Factories Act 1948 (as amended in 1987) r/w Rule 96(1)(2) of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950; and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 87 of the Factories Act, 1948 ( As amended in 1987) r/w Rule 95 Sch XXIV Art. 12A of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950. The total fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/- directed to be paid as compensation to the Legal heirs of the deceased Anbu and Ravi equally. In default of payment of fine, Six months of Simple imprisonment for each counts.

6. On appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the trial Court judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence, the present Revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of C