1 – S.K.Jain, S/o Shri S.C. Jain Aged About 65 Years Ex - Executive v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Deputy Director/factory Inspector, Housing Board Complex, G.E. Road
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR CRR No. 625 of 2012 1 – S.K.Jain, S/o Shri S.C. Jain Aged About 65 Years Ex - Executive Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, A-66, Vrindavan Colony, Jindal Road, Raigarh C.G. 2 - Y.K. Degan S/o Dr. J.K. Degan Aged About 57 Years Executive Director Works, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Block-4, Sector-9, Bhilai, Durg C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Deputy Director/factory Inspector, Housing Board Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur Naka, Durg C.G., 2 - Deputy Director/factory Inspector S/o Industrial Health And Safety, Housing Board Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur Naka, Durg C.G. ... Respondents Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.09.25 14:03:22 +0530 For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Suyash Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) 24/09/2025 Order on Board 1. This Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the Order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the State Industrial Court in Criminal Appeal No.02/CGIRAct/IV/2012 whereby the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal while affirming the judgment dated 08.02.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.584/2007/ Factories Act/Fatal by the J.M.F.C-cum-Labour Court, Durg convicting the applicants under Rule 73-E of the Chhattisgarh Factories Rules, 1962 (for short, the Rules, 1962) and Section 7A (2) (a) of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948) and sentencing them till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.75,000/- each under Section 92 of the Act, 1948 and in default thereof, further they shall suffer SI for six months each. 2 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that at the relevant time, the applicant No.1 was working as Executive Director (Works) whereas the applicant No.2 was working as Deputy General Manager-cum-Factory Manager in Bhilai Steel Plant (in short, the B.S.P.). It is alleged by the prosecution that on 23.04.2007 during inspection of the Plant, Shri K.K.Dwivedi, Deputy Director found that an accident had occurred at the Plant’s premises on 21.04.2007 on account of employing unsafe work measures. It was also found by him that neither crawling boards were used to safely walk on the roof to clean up the dust from a site resulting into damage of approximately 50 seats nor was a safety net installed under the roof which led to break of GI seat and on account of such damage of GI seat, worker Harishankar Singh fell and died and hence the applicants failed to perform their duties to ensure the safety of their workers. After such inspection, statements of the witnesses were recorded and then the applicants were issued show-cause notices, to which, both the applicants submitted their replies. 3. Not being satisfied by their replies, the Deputy Director registered a case against them and consequently, a charge-sheet under Section 105 of the Act, 1948 was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C-cum-Labour Court, Durg. The applicants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined only one witness, namely, K.K.Dwivedi, Deputy Director, Industries and Safety (P.W.1) in support of its case whereas, the applicants examined one Chargeman Amarnath Singh as D.W.1 in support of their defence. Statements of the applicants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 4. After appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned J.M.F.C. recorded the finding of conviction and sentence, which the Industrial Court upheld, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court, without appreciating the evidence available on record, is erroneous. He further submits that both the learned Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence of defence witness 3 Amar Nath Singh, the Chargeman, who clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he had instructed the workers not to go on roof for work without his intimation, but as against his instruction, the deceased worker Harishankar had gone up to roof without intimating to this witness, resulting into his death. He further submits that the accident occurred due to fault and negligence of the deceased worker himself and not on the part of the applicants alone. On these premises, it is prayed that the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court may be set aside and the applicants be set at liberty. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State supported the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. To appreciate the arguments, first of all, I shall focus on the statement of P.W.1 K.K.Dwivedi, Deputy Director. As per his statement, accident occurred on 21.04.2007, on which date, on account of break of G.I.Pipe and not following any safety measures by the applicants at the relevant time, the deceased Harishankar has died on account of his fall from high. It also transpires from his statement that during inspection, he found that fumes and dust emanated from the Mixture – I, which could have caused damage to the roof tiles. In cross-examination, he admitted that on the date of accident, he was not present and visited the Plant on 23.04.2007 and thereafter conducted inspection. He also admitted that during inspection he found that although there was fumes and dust on the roof, but he did not measure the same. Likewise, he admitted that sheet was found broken but did not seize the same nor the same was got examined by any Specialist. During his examination, a question was put to him as to whether mandatory of use of crawling boards made of fragile material, to which, he answered that some provisions of the Factory Act require this. He also admitted that under the provisions of Factory Act, there is no provision for installing nets under the roof while working on the roof. During investigation, he also found that safety belts are provided to workers working on the roof and on 21.04.2007, deceased went to work on the roof without informing to Chargeman Amarnath Singh. 4 9. Except P.W.1 K.K.Dwivedi, Deputy Director, the prosecution has not examined any other witness. Although the prosecution has cited Amarnath Singh, Chargeman as its witness but he has not been examined by the prosecution. As regards the evidence of defence witness Amarnath Singh, Chargeman (D.W.1), he has stated on oath that cleaning of roof was assigned to M/s. Prashant Kumar Mahapatra and the deceased was his Supervisor among other employees and on the date of incident, he clearly instructed them to wear shoes, helmets and belts and this witness also went to the roof along with them for supervising and before starting work, he had tied their safety belts with vertical sheet and the work of cleaning of dust was completed at 10.30 am, thereafter all the workers got down including the deceased, however, the deceased told him to go to upstairs to get another dust bag, but this witness told him not to go to upstairs without his permission and at 11:30 am he received information about the incident. 10. A bare perusal of statement of P.W.1 K.K.Dwivedi does not make out any case against the applicants/accused as this witness was not present on the date of accident and after the accident, he visited the Plant and on the basis of statements of employees working there, he made the report and submitted the same whereas the evidence defence witness shows that D.W.1 Amarnath Singh, Chargeman, who was present at that time, has clearly issued instruction to the deceased about going to upstairs without his permission and ignoring his instruction, the deceased went to upstairs without following safety measures, which led to his death. 11. Rule 73-E of the Chhattisgarh Factories Rules, 1962 reads as under: 73-E. Method of work No process or work shall be carried in any factory in such manner as to cause risk of bodily injury. 12. For proving any case against the applicants/accused, the burden was on the prosecution to lead proper evidence. Except statement of K.K.Dwivedi (P.W.1) on record, there is no other evidence against the applicants/accused. Record would clearly indicate that there is no evidence of other prosecution witnesses to 5 corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Had the prosecution examined more witnesses to show the negligence on the part of the applicants, the things would have been different. There is absolutely no clinching and cogent evidence against the applicants/accused and they have been made accused merely on the basis of statement of P.W.1 K.K.Dwivedi. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no evidence on record to show as to in what manner the applicants/accused were negligent. In absence of above material, the applicants/accused cannot be held guilty of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by both the learned Courts relying upon the statement of sole witness P.W.1 K.K.Dwivedi while ignoring the fact that the deceased himself was negligent to do the work without instruction of D.W.1 Amarnath Singh, Chargeman, is liable to be set aside. 13.
Decision
In the result, the impugned order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Industrial Court is set aside. The Criminal Revision is allowed. The applicants are acquitted of the said charge. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani