Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN, J
State Represented By Its The Deputy Director – Ii – Appellant
Versus
M.palaniyandi – Respondent
ORDER :
1. These criminal revisions have been filed against the concurrent judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, in S.T.C. Nos. 14 and 13 of 2017 dated 26.12.2017, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur, in C.A. Nos. 116 and 117 of 2018, respectively dated 28.02.2019.
2. The petitioner in both the revisions is complainant and the respondent is accused. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent is running a Factory, in which, in the primary crusher, large size stone was crushed into smaller one and the same were conveyed by beltconveyor. The said belt-conveyor was not provided with handrails and railings on the open side of the walk-way. Therefore on 08.09.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., when the conveyor was in operation, one M.Balasubramanian, employee of the respondent, has fallen down into tail end pulley of the conveyor, due to which, his right hand was caught between conveyor belt and roller drum and then his body was dragged into the roller drum, which resulted in his death on the spot. The said accident came to the knowledge of the complainant through Malaimalr news paper
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to safety regulations in factories, clarifying the applicability of the Factories Act even with fewer than ten workers, and addressing procedural errors....
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.
The complaints were an abuse of process of court, as there was no violation of law and rules and regulations, and the complaints were filed belatedly. The non-mention of the show cause notice and its....
It is well settled that at stage of issuing process, Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in complaint or evidence led in support of same and Magistrate is only to be satisfied that t....
The importance of timely and reasoned responses to show cause notices and the implications of delayed replies in criminal prosecutions under the Factories Act.
The prosecution must prove negligence beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
Concurrent prosecutions under the IPC and Factories Act for the same incident are permissible as the laws address different legal elements and liabilities.
Point of law : If an order is not obligatory to be passed under the statute, no appeal would lie against the offence alleged under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act as is alleged in the case at h....
Provision of Section 92 of Factories Act, it is clear that Factories Act is not a part of general penalty law but arise out of a breach of a duty provided in it - Offence punishable under Factories A....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
