Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16982
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Appellant
Versus
ANUJ RANA – Respondent
CRR No. 759 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Vimal Pathak, Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh
An occupier is not liable for contraventions of the Factories Act or Rules if the specific duty for compliance was legally imposed on another person, such as the manager.
Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of the Factories Act, 1948, and Factory Rules, 1962, specifically Section 92, Section 61, Rule 3(A)(3), and Rule 3A(1). The prosecution alleged that a factory operated without a Stability Certificate in Form No. 2 and failed to display working hours information in Form No. 13. While the trial court convicted both the occupier and the manager, the appellate court acquitted the manager and modified the sentence of the occupier. The primary issue is whether an occupier can be held liable for the failure to comply with duties specifically assigned to a manager under the Act and Rules. The court reasoned that if a specific duty is laid upon a particular person, the responsibility for the breach lies with that person. Consequently, an occupier cannot be held liable for the manager's failure to maintain registers or comply with specific requirements when such duties are not imposed on the occupier. Ex consequenti, the revision is without any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of factory violations and trial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 9) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the acquittal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. distinction between occupier and manager liability. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of the criminal revision. (Para 11) |
Order on Board
1. This Criminal Revision is preferred under Section 397 , 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 01/I.D. Act/IV/2011 “Anuj Rana & Another Vs. State of C.G. & Another”, whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted (in part) of the charges under Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 3(A) (3) and Rule 95 of Factory Rules, 1962 . For the sake of brevity “the Act” arising out of Criminal Case No. 18/ Factories Act/2008, judgment dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court-Korba.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused own a factory named M/s Neel Kantham System Pvt. Ltd. in Risda Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba. Accused No. 1-Anuj Rana is the occupant of the factory, and Accused No. 2-P.K. Banerjee is the factory Manager. On 15.02.2008, the Complainant inspected the factory in the presence of the factory watchman, Babulal. During the inspection, the Complainant found that the accused were using 30 horsepower of electrical power and employing 18 workers to manufacture fly ash bricks without obtaining a Stability Certificate in Form No. 2 and submitting it to the Factory Inspector. During the Complainant's inspection of the accused's factory on 15.02.2008, it was also found that the accused had not displayed the working hours information in Form No. 13 at the factory, nor had a copy been sent to the Factory Inspector's office. Upon inspection by the complainant, the accused were found to have violated the provisions of Rule 3(A) (3) of the Rules, 1962 and Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 3A (1) of the Rules, 1962. A letter dated 20.02.2008 was sent to the accused through a registered A.D. to rectify the said violations. As the accused did not rectify the violations in compliance with the said letter, the complainant sent them a show cause notice dated 05.05.2008 through a registered AD, but despite this, the accused did not rectify the alleged violations. Consequently, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused for the said violations under Section 92 of the Act, 1948.
3. After completion of the due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/respondents before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, where the accused/respondents were convicted vide judgment dated 17.03.2011 under Section 92 of the Act, 1948 and thereafter the matter was committed to learned State Industrial Court as both the accused/respondents preferred Criminal Appeal and vide judgment dated 24.12.2011 the learned State Industrial Court has acquitted respondent No. 2- P.K. Banerjee and modified the sentence of respondent No. 1- Anuj Rana.
4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 01 witness to prove its case against the respondents. However, in their defence the accused person did not adduce any witness.
5. Learned counsel for the State/appellants submits that the judgment, finding and order of acquittal passed by the learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur/Appellate Court is illegal, improper and incorrect and thus liable to be set aside. The learned State Industrial Court has committed an error in deciding the facts in the case and also on the law points. The order of acquittal passed by the learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur/Appellate Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents, but the learned Appellate Court has overlooked the provisio
