Under Section 105 of the Factories Act (AP Amendment), prior sanction from the State Government is mandatory before filing a complaint; failure voids the proceedings, and subsequent sanction does not cure the defect.

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.150 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Rajamahendravaram.

2. Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Petitioner/Accused No.1 is the occupier and Accused No.2 is the Manager of the factory. He submits that an accident occurred on 24.09.2024, wherein an employee of the factory, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, sustained grievous injuries resulting in the amputation of his leg. He further submits that immediately after the occurrence of the accident, Accused No.2, being the Manager of the factory, informed the Inspector of Factories on the very same day. The Inspector of Factories conducted the first inspection on 25.09.2024 and a second inspection on 26.09.2024. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the Inspector of Factories on 11.11.2024, to which Petitioner/Accused No.2

submitted a reply on 13.11.2024.

3. It is further submits that the Respondent lodged a complaint on 21.12.2024 without obtaining prior sanction from the Government as mandated under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for brevity, „the Act‟), as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No.13 of 2015 with effect from 26.11.2015. It is submitted that the complaint was filed in a hurried manner without securing the requisite sanction. It is further submitted that the

3

202D6r:.AYPLRH,C J :16137 Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026

Dated 06.04.2026

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 28.10.2025, whereas the sanction order was granted on 05.04.2025, i.e., after a lapse of nearly six months from the date of the alleged occurrence. Ultimately, it is urged that in view of the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of prior sanction, this Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Petition and quash the

proceedings.

4. Sri A. Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are untenable both on facts and in law. It is submitted that the accident dated 24.09.2024 resulted in grievous injuries to the workman, culminating in amputation of his leg, and the same clearly discloses serious violations of the safety provisions under „the Factories Act‟. The plea of the Petitioners that the injured employee was under the influence of alcohol does not absolve the management of its statutory responsibility to safe working environment and to ensure strict compliance with safety norms within the factory premises. It is further submitted that the inspections conducted by the Inspector of Factories on 25.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 revealed certain lapses, and the subsequent notice issued on 11.11.2024 and the reply dated 13.11.2024 form part of the statutory process leading to prosecution. The material collected during inspection prima facie establishes contraventions attributable to the occupier and the Manager of the

factory.

4

202D6r:.AYPLRH,C J :16137 Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026

Dated 06.04.2026

5. With regard to the contention relating to sanction under Section 105 of „the Act.,‟ it is submitted that the sanction was indeed accorded by the competent authority on 05.04.2025. The mere fact that the