Prosecutions under different sections for workplace incidents can coexist without double jeopardy as they address distinct legal matters.

O R D E R

The accused in S.T No.6812/2014 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 . The learned Magistrate had initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent herein, who is the Inspector of Factories and Boilers Grade-I, Perumbavoor.

2. The case against the petitioner is summarised as follows:

On 16.04.2014 at about 12:30 a.m, a fire which broke out in the factory conducted by the petitioner herein as Managing Director, resulted in the death of four workers due to burn injuries. The aforesaid accident occurred since the Seasoning Chamber in that factory was maintained and operated in such a manner as to cause risk of bodily injury to the workers. The petitioner also failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they were at work in that factory. In addition to that, the petitioner failed to inform the authorities of the Department of Factories and Boilers in the prescribed manner about the dangerous fire occurrence which resulted in the death of four workers due to burn injuries.

3. The learned Magistrate took the complaint to files and issued summons to the petitioner to appear before that Court to answer the accusations, in connection with the commission of the aforesaid offence.

4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against him. It is further contended that none of the violations alleged in the complaint actually happened. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the criminal prosecution launched against him is barred by limitation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor who represented the State of Kerala and the second respondent.

6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the petitioner has wrongly understood the averments in Annexure-A1 order of the complainant, and paragraph No.6 of the complaint with regard to the date when the complainant conducted inspection in the factory, consequent to the fire occurrence which happened on 16.04.2014. All that is stated thereunder are that the complainant had conducted an investigation about the dangerous occurrence which happened in the factory at 12:30 a.m on 16.04.2014. The petitioner has interpreted the above statement as if the complainant conducted the investigation on 16.04.2014 itself. It has been categorically stated in paragraph No.5 of the complaint that the complainant conducted the investigation in that factory on 25.04.2014 based on an unofficial report stating that a fire accident occurred in that factory. Ignoring the above categorical statement in paragraph No.5 of the complaint, the petitioner has tried to interpret the averments in paragraph No.6 of the complaint, and also the wordings in Annexure-A1 order, as if it pointed to an investigation conducted by the complainant on 16.04.2014 itself. In fact, the date 16.04.2014 is mentioned therein indicating the date of occurrence of the accident, and not the date when the complainant conducted investigation in that factory. The above misinterpretation of the wordings in paragraph No.6 of the complaint, and in Annexure-A1 order, is the basis of the challenge of the petitioner that the proceedings initiated against him are barred by limitation.

7. Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948 reads as follows:

“106. Limitation of prose