2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8210
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3120 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH AGRAWAL S/O SHRI KESHARI
CHAND AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O
OLD GALLA MANDI, GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
….....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGRAWAL -
ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH INSPECTOR, BUILDING AND
OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
(REGULATION OF EMPLOYEMNT AND
CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT, 1996 AND
ALSO DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL
HEALTH AND SECURITY, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
….....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR BUDHOLIYA
-PANEL LAWYER )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 23.08.2023
Pronounced on : 01.09.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 01-09-2023
10:37:33 AM
Signature Not Verified
2
Dinesh Kumar Agrawal,Advocate General
Present criminal revision under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of
Cr.P.C has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2023
passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Cr.A.
No.110/2019 affirming the judgment dated 26.04.2019 passed in RCT
No.995/2012 by Chief Judicial Magistrate Guna (M.P.) convicting the
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 50 for violation of
provision of Section 39 of “The Building and Other Construction
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) r/w. Rule 210 of the “M.P.
Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment
and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Rules”) and imposed with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 47 for
violation of provision of Section 39 of the Act r/w. Rule 49 and imposed
with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 48 for violation of provision of
Section 46 of the Act, and also imposed with fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default stipulations.
2.
The facts in brief to decide the present revision are that on
14.02.2012 the wall of under construction - Yash Ware Housing
Corporation A.B. Road, Bilonia Guna fell down while plastering, in
which six workers were buried and died. The proprietor of said accident
site is petitioner/accused - Rajesh Agarwal and the construction work
was being done through the contractor accused - Munnalal Jatav. The
site of the said accident was inspected on 19.02.2012, the statements of
alive labourers were recorded, Panchnama and photographs of accident
site were prepared.
3. Thereafter, a notice was issued to accused proprietor Rajesh
3
Agrawal and contractor Munnalal Jatav. A copy of the notice was also
forwarded to the Chief Inspector and Labour Commissioner,
Government of Madhya Pradesh, Indore. On the basis of said notice,
Chief Inspector and Labour Commissioner, Government of M.P. by
taking cognizance of the said crime, issued a show cause notice to
accused persons on 20.03.2012. As per the relevant Rules of 2002,
alleging that the first aid box and medicines were not kept at the
construction site and safety shoes, helmets were not provided to the
labourers working, nor it was ensured that the labourers at the
workplace wear safety shoes and helmet while working and also it was
not ensured that while making the wall it was stable without any
support.
4.
After grant of sanction for prosecution, a complaint under
aforementioned sections was filed before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Guna. The learned C.J.M., Guna framed the charges and
after recording of evidence available on record vide judgment dated
26/04/2019 passed in R.C.T. No.995/2012 convicted the petitioner as
described in para-1 of this order.
5.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Cr.A.
No.110/2019 before the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Guna,
(M.P.). The learned appellate Court after hearing learned counsel for the
rival parties vide impugned judgment dated 19/04/2023 affirmed the
judgment dated 26/04/2019 passed by the trial Court, against which, the
present revision is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned
orders passed by courts below are perverse, illegal and against the
settled principles of law, hence, the same is liable to be quashed. It is
4
further argued that both the courts below have committed serious error
while taking the cognizance of offence in the complaint dated,
05.06.2012 (Annexure A/4) which is barred by limitation u/S.55 of the
Act. It is further argued that both the courts below have committed
serious error in ignoring the admission and documents on record and not
dealing with Exh.D-1 which palpably shows that the Labour
Commissioner/Chief Inspector was having knowledge of the alleged
offence from 21.02.2012 in terms of Section 55 of the Act and,
therefore, the written complaint u/S.54 of the Act could not have been