Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT INDORE
S.C.Sharma, Vivek Rusia, JJ.
Vijay Parekh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 45912/2018
Decided On : 11-05-2020
Judgment - Factories Act - 2(m)(i), 92, 88, 300 Cr.P.C, Article 20(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Factories Act and Rules, section 300 of the Cr.P.C, and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the different offences under the Factories Act and the IPC, and the absence of a bar to separate trials for these offences.
Fact of the Case:
An explosion occurred in a factory, resulting in injuries and death. The petitioner was convicted under the Factories Act and sought to quash criminal proceedings under the IPC, citing protection under Article 20(2) and section 300 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences under the Factories Act and the IPC were different, and there was no bar to separate trials for these offences. It emphasized the absence of a prohibition for separate trials under the Factories Act and the Cr.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be prosecuted and punished twice for the same incident under the Factories Act and the IPC, in violation of Article 20(2) and section 300 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ingredients of the offences under the Factories Act and the IPC were different, and there was no bar to separate trials for these offences. It emphasized that the absence of a prohibition for separate trials under the Factories Act and the Cr.P.C allowed for prosecution under both enactments.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the judgment in a previous case did not prohibit separate trials for offences under the Factories Act and the IPC. The matter was referred to a larger bench for further consideration.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Rusia, J. - This petition has been referred to the Division Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for answering the following question of law:
' Whether judgment/order pronounced in respect of a complaint governing provisions of Factories Act and Rules prohibit separate trial in respect of offences under the Indian Penal Code in view of section 300 Cr.P.C and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India?'
Necessary facts of the case which led to this reference case are as under:
2. On 30.04.2012 an explosion took place in the boiler of the factory belonging to the petitioner viz. Dhanlaxmi Starch Products, situated at 113, 114, 117, Sector-F, Saver Road, Indore. The factory is registered under section 2(m)(i) of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act of 1948' ) and engaged in the production of starch products. In the said explosion workers Omprakash, Ramesh and Gyanchand sustained burn injuries and during treatment Omprakash succumbed to the burn injuries on 05.05.2012. On account of the death of Omprakash, a criminal case under section 174 Cr.P.C (Marg No.64/12) was registered on 05.05.2012 and a Marg enquiry was conducted. After the enquiry, an FIR (Crime No.606/12) for the offence punishable under sections 304-A & 287 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner on 05.07.2012. On 27.07.2012 after completing the investigation, final report was filed by the Police Station Banganga, Indore before the competent Court for the offence punishable under sections 304-A, 287 & 337 of the I.P.C.
3. Because of the aforesaid accident in the factory, a complaint case was also registered by the Factory Inspector for the offences punishable under section 92 of the Act of 1948 and after investigation Challan was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. The matter came up before the Lok Adalat on 15.12.2012. In the Lok Adalat the petitioners admitted the commission of offence, therefore, they were convicted under section 88 of the Act of 1948 read with Rule 108 of the Factories Rules, 1950 and Rules 7, 7A, 72 & 73J of the Madhya Pradesh Factories Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1962') and sentenced them till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.45,000/- each and the case was closed.
4. In the Police case (Crime No.606/12) on 27.07.2012 Challan under section 173 of the Cr.P.C was filed before learned J.M.F.C, Indore in Criminal Case No.24961/2012 for the offence punishable under sections 304-A, 287 & 337 of the I.P.C. Learned J.M.F.C framed the charges against the petitioner and fixed the case for evidence. According to the petitioner, he had already been convicted and sentenced under section 92 of the Act of 1948 as mentioned hereinabove vide order dated 15.12.2012 but due to his ignorance he continued to contest the criminal trial for the same cause under the Indian Penal Code.
5. Petitioner has approached this Court by way of petition (MCRC No.45912/18) under section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the FIR as well as the subsequent criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.24961/2012 pending before the learned J.M.F.C, Indore on the ground that the Act of 1948 being a special Act overwrites the provisions of Indian Penal Code which is a general law. Once he has been tried and punished under the provisions of the Act of 1948, he could not be tried under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for the same accident which was occurred in the factory on 30.04.2012 as he is having the protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which protects a citizen of India against such double jeopardy of prosecution and punishment for the same offence more once. The petitioner has also placed reliance over the provision of section 300 Cr.P.C which provides that a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
