O R D E R

This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed by the District and Sessions Court, Tiruvarur in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2015 in Crl.M.P.No.270 of 2015 in C.C.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur dated 18.11.2016.

2. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is the State who has filed a complaint against the respondent for the offences under Section 41 r/w Rule 61(E) and Section 105 r/w. Rule 13(C) and Section 92 of the Factories Act. The petitioner has given a private complaint on the allegation that the respondent is the owner of KRP Modern Rice Mill situated at Keezhathuraiyur, Keezhavidaiyal, Tiruvarur District. On 14.02.2014, four loadmen were loading the rice bags in the lorry and when two loadmen by name Rajappa and Tamilvanan went to refresh themselves and took water from the nearby hand pump, they got electrocuted due to electrical short circuit and that resulted in the death of the above said two loadmen. On 17.02.2014, the petitioner authorities inspected the premises and came to know that the electrical motor pump was fixed on 13.02.2014, after recoiling and repairing. Since the main board did not have earth leakage circuit breaker, there was a leakage of electricity and that had caused the accident. On these allegations, a private complaint was filed and taken on file in C.C.No.1 of 2015. Subsequently, the respondent has filed a petition to discharge himself and the said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. The said order was challenged by the respondent in Crl.R.P.No.28 of 2015 before the District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur and the said revision was allowed by reversing the dismissal order of the Trial Court. Now the petitioner had preferred this Criminal Revision by challenging the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had chosen to allow the discharge petition on the observation that the prosecution of the respondent for the offences under the Factories Act would amount to double jeopardy because the prosecution has already been initiated against the respondent for the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC and he was acquitted in the said case; the Supreme Court has held in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs.State of Gujarat reported in (2012) 7 SCC 621, that even though there might be some overlapping of facts even in both the cases under IPC and under Special Act, but the ingredients of the offence are entirely different;

hence it is not barred to proceed under both the provisions.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 14.02.2014 and the Inspector of Factories visited the premises on 17.02.2014; however, the complaint was filed on 29.05.2014 and again re-presented on 17.04.2015; as per Section 106 of the Factories Act, the petitioner ought to have initiated proceedings under the said Act within three months from the date of the knowledge of the violation; in the case in hand, the complaint was re-presented on 17.04.2015 after a delay of one year and the delay was not condoned by the Court below and hence the complaint itself is barred by limitation.

6. In pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.01.2023, the records pertaining to C.C.No.1 of 2015 was called for and it was now produced before this Court. On perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the complaint was first presented on 15.05.2014 on the same day itself it was returned for certain lapses. Thereafter, the complaint was re-presented on

16.05.2014 but it got once again returned on 03.06.2014. Thereafter, the case was taken on file on 17.04.2015. The records does not disclose when was the complaint re-presented for the second time after complying the remarks. Even though if it is taken that the co