Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J
V.R. Rambhad – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu State represented by the Deputy Director Industrial Safety and Health – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factory inspection revealed safety violations leading to prosecutions. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioners argue limitation, lack of sanction, ignored replies. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent counters on timely filing, consideration of replies, no sanction needed. (Para 4) |
| 4. prior sanction under section 197 cr.p.c. mandatory for central government employees. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 14) |
| 5. supreme court precedents distinguished; factual fit essential. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. proceedings quashed for want of prior sanction; petitions allowed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
COMMON ORDER
In view of commonality of issues involved, all the four criminal original petitions are considered and decided by this common order.
2. A bird’s eye view of the facts that led to the filing of the present four criminal original petitions is as under:
2.1. While the petitioner in Crl.O.P. Nos.26475 and 26594 of 2025 (Rambhad) is an Occupier in the Heavy Vehicles Factory which is a unit of Armoured Vehicles Nigam Ltd., the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.26438 and 26504 of 2025 (Jay Prakash Singh) is a Manager in the same organisation.
2.2. On 23.08.2023 at 10.00 a.m., on a joint inspection made by the Joint Director and Deputy D
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
