STATE OF GUJARAT v. ASHOKBHAI DAVE
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Factories Act, 1948 s. 92
Judgment
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA ============================================================ -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ASHOKBHAI DAVE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: LAPP Mr.BUKHARI FOR THE APPELLANT MR NS SHETH for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA Date of decision: 08/10/97 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)The appeal is filed by the State with a view to get the sentence awarded by the trial Court enhanced. The charge was under Sec.92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for breach of Sec. 21(1)(iv)(b). It relates to safety requirement pertaining to every part of transmission machinery.
2.(cid:9)The accused having admitted the guilt and when as per the prosecution case, it is obvious that a workman Ramkrishna Dayal lost his hand as he fell upon an exposed shafting end which could not have happened but for the want of proper guard and adequate safety precaution. The offence under Sec.21((1)(iv)(b), therefore, is clearly made out.
3.(cid:9)The sentence awarded is clearly less because Sec.92 proviso added in the year 1976 makes it incumbent upon the Court when there is serious bodily injury to award minimum sentence of Rs.5,000/-. What has been awarded is Rs.500/- only. The words "serious bodily injuris" have also been explained in the explanation below the proviso. Loss of hand is clearly covered within the meaning thereof.
4.(cid:9)It is, therefore, obvious that the sentence of fine of Rs.500/- will have to be enhanced to Rs.5000/-. It is accordingly enhanced to Rs.5000/-. The fine initially imposed by the trial Court, having been paid, the respondent shall pay the balance amount of Rs.4,500/- within six weeks from today. The appel is allowed accordinlgy. ****
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Factories Act, 1948 — s. 92.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 08 Oct 1997. The bench was N PANDYA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.