Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice P.VELMURUGAN
complainant – Appellant
Versus
respondent – Respondent
S.T.C.Nos.14 and 13 of 2017 | C.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners:learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For the Respondents: learned Senior Counsel
A stone crushing unit employing fewer than ten workers with power usage qualifies as a factory under the Factories Act; written complaints by authorized public servants suffice without necessitating their examination by Magistrate.
Headnote:(A) Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 2(k), 6(1)(d), 7(A)(1)(2)(d), 21(2), 85(1), 87(a), 88, 92, 105, 112; Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 - Rules 4(1)(2)(3), 53(1), 95 Schedule XIX, 96(1)(2), 103; Cr.P.C. - Sections 200, 401(3) - Applicability of Factories Act to crushing units with less than ten workers using power - Complaint by public servant - Magistrate’s non-examination of complainant - Jurisdiction to take cognizance - Limitations on revisional court’s powers.
(B) A necessary handrail safety provision was absent in the factory leading to fatal accident - violation of safety measures under the Factories Act established as "respondent violated the mandatory provisions under the Factories Act, 1948" (para 5.4).
(C) The concurrent judgments acquitting the accused on grounds of non-examination of complainant and jurisdictional issues were "perverse" and failed to appreciate statutory provisions (paras 5.2, 14, 15, 19).
Facts of the case:
The respondent operated a stone crushing factory where an employee died due to his hand being caught in the conveyor belt machine lacking handrails, resulting in a fatal accident on 08.09.2016. The complainant, acting in official capacity, inspected the premises discovering violations under the Factories Act and filed complaints. Trial and appellate courts acquitted the respondent on different grounds.
Findings of Court:
The revisional Court found that the factory falls under the Factories Act, 1948 as per Section 85(1) and accompanying rules, the complaint filed by the public servant was valid without examination requirement and the failure of lower courts to apply these legal provisions amounted to error warranting interference.
Issues: Whether the stone crushing unit qualifies as a factory under the Act despite number of workers; Whether non-examination of the complainant by Magistrate is fatal; Whether acquittal on such grounds was justified; Whether revision Court can convict against acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that where complaint is filed in writing by an authorized public servant under Section 105 of Factories Act, Magistrate need not examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The stone crushing operation with power using less than ten workers still qualifies as a Factory under Section 85(1). The concurrent acquittals based on non-examination and jurisdictional issues ignored these provisions and so are set aside. However, as per Section 401(3) Cr.P.C., the revision Court cannot convert acquittal into conviction but can remit for fresh consideration.
Result: Concurrent judgments of acquittal set aside; matter remitted to appellate Court for rehearing and fresh disposal in accordance with law.
COMMON ORDER
These criminal revisions have been filed against the concurrent judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, in S.T.C.Nos.14 and 13 of 2017 dated 26.12.2017, as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur, in C.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2018, respectively dated 28.02.2019.
2 The petitioner in both the revisions is complainant and the respondent is accused. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent is running a Factory, in which, in the primary crusher, large size stone was crushed into smaller one and the same were conveyed by beltconveyor. The said beltconveyor was not provided with handrails and railings on the open side of the walk-way. Therefore on 08.09.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., when the conveyor was in operation, one M.Balasubramanian, employee of the respondent, has fallen down into tail end pulley of the conveyor, due to which, his right hand was caught between conveyor belt and roller drum and then his body was dragged into the roller drum, which resulted in his death on the spot. The said accident came to the knowledge of the complainant through Malaimalr news paper on 09.09.2016 and hence the petitioner made inspection in the respondent's Factory on 10.09.2016 and it was found that the respondent/accused had violated the safety measures contemplated under the Factories Act, 1948, and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 .
3 On noticing the violations of the mandatory provisions under the Factories Act, 1948, and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 , by the occupier and Manager, P.W.1 lodged two complaints on 08.12.2016 under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, one is for contravention of Section 88 r/w Rule 96(1)(2), Section 112 r/w Rule 103 of the Factories Act, 1948, and Tamil Nadu Factories Rule, 1950 and the other complaint is for the offence under Section 6(1)(d) r/w Rule 4(1)(2)(3), Section 21(2) r/w Rule 53(1), Schedule XI Part A Item 2(3) r/w Section 7(A)(1)(2)(d) r/w Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and Tamil Nadu Factories Rule, 1950, and the same were taken on file in S.T.C.Nos.14 and 13 of 2017 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.
4 To prove the charges, the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to 15. The trial Court, after trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side, by judgments dated 26.12.2017, acquitted the accused/respondent from all the charges, against which, the complainant preferred appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur, in C.A.Nos.116 and 117 of 2018. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by judgments dated 28.02.2019, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the acquittal of the respondent/accused. Aggrieved over the concurrent judgments of acquittal, the complainant is before this Court, with the present criminal revision cases.
5 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is an occupier and Manager of the Factory, who has been arrayed as accused. The District Collector executed lease deed in favour of the accused and the license is covered under the provisions of “The Mines and Mineral Act”. The respondent obtained consent letter Ex.P9 from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to operate industrial plant, which will not absolve the accused from the criminal case registered against him, since he violated the provisions under the Factories Act, 1948, and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 . The petitioner came to know about the death of the victim, which took place within the premises owned by the accused and hence made inspection, wherein, it found that the respondent violated the mandatory provisions under the Factories Act, 1948. Hence a show cause notice has been issued to the respondent by the authorities concerned constituted under the Factories Act, 1948. Both th
