An accused in a technical offense may be represented by counsel to answer charges, as consistent treatment with similar cases ensures fairness in the judicial process.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed to call for the records in C.C.No.8 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet District and to set aside the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.168 of 2024.

2. The petitioner, who is an accused in C.C.No.8 of 2024, had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.168 of 2024 under Section 228 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘B.N.S.S.’) ( Section 205 Cr.P.C.) seeking to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner/accused and the same was dismissed, against which, the present revision is filed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the above case as occupier of the factory, namely, M/s.Brakes India Private Ltd. The petitioner is a frequent traveller for business purpose. The petitioner has to travel to Japan and Mexico for his proposed business itinerary. The petitioner has got factories in other parts of the country where he has to frequently visit. For that reason, the petitioner filed the above petition. Further, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 275 of BNSS ( Section 252 of Cr.P.C.) in Crl.M.P.No.169 of 2024 requesting the Court to permit the petitioner to be represented by his counsel to answer the charges and the same is kept pending. On the other hand, the above impugned order has been passed, by which, the petitioner’s prayer in Crl.M.P.No.169 of 2024 has become meaningless. He further submitted that in C.C.No.7 of 2024, the Manager of Brakes India Private Ltd., Ranipet was prosecuted and he pleaded guilty and the trial Court by order dated 09.08.2024, imposed the following sentences:

“In the result, the accused is found guilty under Section 252 of Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 33(1) r/w Section 92 of the FACTORIES ACT ; and Section 88(1) of the FACTORIES ACT r/w Rule 96(1)(2) schedule 1(a) of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) for the offence under Section 33(1) r/w Section 92 of the FACTORIES ACT and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of three months and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) for the offence under Section 88(1) of the FACTORIES ACT r/w Rule 96(1)(2) schedule 1(a) of Tamil Nadu Factories Rules punishable under Section 92 of the FACTORIES ACT and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of three months. Total fine Rs.29,000/-”

The fine was paid and a quietus was given to the issue.

4. The case against the petitioner is, for the same cause of action as occupier he is being prosecuted. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and Others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 401, more particularly to paragraph 16 and 17.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on 06.09.2023, in the factory, namely, M/s.Brakes India Private Ltd, an employee, namely, Krishnamoorthy died due to his fall into 1½ feet stagnated rain water. The petitioner not taken proper steps as occupier to have an hazardous free environment. Hence, for the violation of Section 7(A)(1) and (2) r/w 33(1) of FACTORIES ACT , the Manager of the said factory as well as the petitioner as occupier have been prosecuted. Two complaints were filed, one against the Manager in C.C.No.7 of 2024 and another against the petitioner in C.C.No.8 of 2024. The Manager not contested, pleaded guilty and fine of Rs.29,000/- imposed in C.C.No.7 of 2024, which the Manager paid on 09.08.2024. As r