JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent for an offence under section 41 & 87 of the Factories Act, 1948, r/w 61-E & F & section 21(2) Rules 53 & 95 of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950.

2. The petitioners are the occupier and the Manager of Rane Brake Linings Limited.

3. The private complaint has been instituted based on two incidents. The first incident pertains to V. Krishnamurthy who was aligning ejection pins of clutch facing module in pre-form machine. At that time, the press was operated in an unsafe manner, as a result of which, he sustained caused bodily injuries. The relevant Form No. 18 prescribed under Rule 96 was filed by indicating that the said B. Krishnamurthy was aligning ejection pins in preform press No. 245 with a screw driver and his helper was doing inching up action, the screw driver got slipped and his right hand index finger got crushed.

4. The second incident that has been cited in the complaint pertains to S. Ramesh, who is an apprentice, while he was taking the inspected rail blocks to packing area by trolley and some of the blocks fell down on his right foot causing hairline fracture. Form 18 under Rule 96 was filed indicating that the said S. Ramesh, was moving the inspected Railway blocks to packing area by trolley and unfortunately he lost balance and the Railway blocks fell down on his right foot.

5. The next allegation in the complaint is that the ventilating plant was not maintained properly and particulars of the inspection and test was not sent to the competent authority. Therefore, there is a violation of section 87, Rule 95 of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Show-Cause Notice was issued by the respondent calling upon to explain both the incidents and a detailed reply was given to the respondent. However, this reply was neither considered by the sanctioning authority nor was it considered in the complaint filed before the Court below. The learned Counsel further submitted that Rule 61-F of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules will not apply to the present case, since it deals with only cases where any process or work is carried on in a factory in such a manner which could cause risk of bodily injury. The learned Counsel submitted that the entire complaint is an abuse of process of Court and even if the allegations are taken as it is, no offence has been made out as against the petitioners.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that both the incidents happened due to the carelessness of the petitioners, who are the occupier and Manager of the factory. The learned Counsel submitted that the reason for the incidents and the circumstances under which it took place, are all matters of evidence and the same cannot be gone into at the stage of considering the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

9. From the facts stated above, it has to be seen whether the incidents that happened to V. Krishnamurthy, S. Ramesh, was caused due to any negligence on the side of the petitioners as alleged in the complaint. The complaint proceeds on the basis that both were carrying on with their work in an unsafe manner and they had been exposed to the risk of sustaining injuries, and therefore the petitioners have committed an offence under sections 41 & 87 of the Factories Act, 1948, r/w 61-E & F & section 21(2) Rules 53 & 95 of the Factories Act.

10. When a Show-Cause Notice was issued by the respondent, the petitioners have given a detailed reply for the same. This reply has not been considered either by the sanctioning authority or at the time of filing of the complaint. This Court has already held that where a reply has been given to the Show-Cause Notice, the said reply has to be considered and de