Prosecution under the Factories Act must adhere to statutory limitation periods for complaints.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-04-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP NO. 6419 of 2024 AND CRL MP NO.6791 & 4738 OF 2024 Mr.Satyam Choudhary S/o.Pooran Mal Choudary, Director, M/s.Instakart Services Private Limited(Grocery), No.125, Orakkadu Village, Thiruvallur District-600067 Petitioner(s)

Vs Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai-600 019 Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to CC No.741 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur and consequently quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Neelesh Sundaram for M/s.Nathan and Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath, GA(Crl.side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to CC No.741 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur and consequently quash the same.

2.The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 83 , 112 and 41 of the Factories Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as ''the Act'') alleging irregularities in the occupational standards of the petitioner company. When the petitioner's premise was inspected jointly by then Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health and Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Thiruvottiyur, it was found that cold storage with 15,716.6 sq.feet area is used for storage and preservation of the food products like butter, cheese, yogurt and chocolates etc., with a man power of 282 workers and machineries. The petitioner failed to maintain Leave with Wages Register of all the workers employed in the factory in Form No.12 Further, as per Section 112 Rule 103-C(1), the Manager of every factory shall issue Photo Identity Card to each worker employed in the Form No.25-C, but the petitioner issued Photo Identity Card to the worker employed is not confirming to details in the Form No.25-C. Further, the petitioner in contravention of Section 41 Rule 61-K(1)(2)(4), appointed Fork Lift Operators without examining their eye sight by an Ophthalmologist and no record of examination or re- examination carried out by the concerned Ophthalmologist was produced during inspection.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds to quash the complaint viz, (i) there was a delay in lodgement of the complaint as contemplated under Section 106 of the Act; ii) the petitioner was served with only one show cause notice for alleged contraventions and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the respondent filed the complaint.

4.According to the petitioner, there is no cold storage, and the petitioner is only maintaining a refrigerator for storage of perishables and therefore, there is no manufacturing process for the purpose of bringing it within the definition of 2(12) of the Act. In order to lodge a complaint, there must be a prior sanction from a Superior Officer. Without obtaining any prior sanction, the respondent initiated prosecution as against the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted categorical reply to the show cause notice, the complaint does not even whisper about the explanation submitted by the petitioner and as such the respondent mechanically lodged a complaint and the same has been mechanically taken cognizance by the trial Court, that too after a lapse of two years.

5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent had filed a counter and submitted that due to Covid 19, there was a delay of few days in lodgment of c