Back
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Dhanpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') challenging the order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure P-2), passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, whereby, charge has been framed against the petitioners in case FIR No.310 dated 19.11.2018 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala along with judgment dated 08.11.2019 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the said order framing charge.
2. The brief factual matrix as is necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case is as under:-
2.1 The FIR in question had been registered on the allegations that Parshotam Singh (non-petitioner) is the sole proprietor and owner of Sidhu Industrial Corporation situated in Village Dhudiawal Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Near R.C.F. Hussainpur. His sons Dhanpreet Singh and Dilpreet Singh (petitioners- herein) are engaged in manufacturing of the floor of
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....
Concurrent prosecutions under the IPC and Factories Act for the same incident are permissible as the laws address different legal elements and liabilities.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the prosecution's burden to prove the accused's liability beyond reasonable doubt and the limited application of vicarious liability in criminal....
The prosecution under different statutes for distinct offences does not constitute double jeopardy. Lack of evidence for negligence is crucial in cases of criminal prosecution for causing death by ne....
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....
Directors are not liable for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and related sections and rules.
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....
A Factory Manager can be prosecuted under IPC Section 304A for negligence leading to an employee's death, even if the Occupier was previously prosecuted under the Factories Act, without violating dou....
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
