P.Abdul Wajid.. Petitioner/Accused v. The State,Rep., by Inspector of Factories,Division-II, Vellore.. Respondent/Complainant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.6.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMARCrl.O.P.No.10679 of 2009P.Abdul Wajid.. Petitioner/AccusedVersusThe State,Rep., by Inspector of Factories,Division-II, Vellore.. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for adirection to call for the records relating to C.C.No.11 of 2009 onthe file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore and quash the sameas illegal and unsustainable.For Petitioner : Mr.C.P.SivamohanFor Respondent : Mr.Paul Nobel Devakumar Government Advocate (Crl side)O R D E RThe accused in C.C.No.11 of 2009 pending on the file of theChief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore is the petitioner herein. Theprosecution has been launched against the petitioner herein, for anoffence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 for theviolation of the following provisions:i) Section 6(1) of the Factories Act r/w 4(1) (2)(3) and Rule12-B (5) of the Factories Rules, ii) And Section 7(1) of the Factories Act r/w Rule 12 of theFactories Rules. 2. At the time of inspection by the Inspector of Factories on02.12.2008, he found that manufacturing process using power was goingon with the engagement of 22 workers. The following violations werenoted by the Inspector of Factories at the time of his inspection:(i) Approval for the topo sketch cite plan and detailed plan hadnot been obtained, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Approval had not been obtained by submitting Form No.I andForm No.II,(iii) And the documents required to be exhibited in the Factorywere also not exhibited at the time of inspection by the Inspector ofFactories.3. After the notice issued by the Inspector of Facotries,Circle-II, Vellore, the petitioner herein gave a reply stating thathe was neither a manager nor the owner of the factory premises and hewas doing job work there in the factory premises which was inspectedby the Inspector of Factories on 02.12.2008. Not satisfied with thereply, the Inspector of Factories, Circle-II, Vellore submitted acomplaint as per Section 105(1) of the Factories Act on the file ofthe Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. The same was taken on fileas C.C.No.11 of 2009 and process was issued to the petitionerherein, who was arrayed as the sole accused in the said case. Asagainst the issue of process and seeking an order quashing thecriminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.11 of2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. Thepetitioner has come forward with the present petition under Section482 CrPc.4. The submissions made by Mr.C.P.Sivamohan, learned counsel forthe petitioner and also by Mr.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl Side) were heard. The affidavit filed insupport of the petition and materials produced were also perused bythis Court.5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the veryinitiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner isobnoxious and against law as he is neither the manager nor the ownerof the premises which was inspected by the complainant viz.,Inspector of Factories, Circle-II, Vellore on 01.12.2008. It is alsohis contention that he was doing job work viz., tanning in the saidpremises and hence, he could not be expected to get the approval ofthe documents pointed out supra. Learned counsel for the petitionerwould also contend that the owner of the premises had leased out thefactory premises to a third party and it was the third partyM/s.Sarfaraz Niaz & Co. who was running the factory on lease; thatall those documents with the necessary approval would be availableonly with them or the owner of the premises and that prosecuting thepetitioner for his inability to produce those documents would not beproper in law. Though there is no such clear stand taken by thepetitioner in his reply to the notice of the Inspector of Factoriesand in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was noteven an occupier of the factory and hence, he could not be prosecutedfor any of the offences cited in the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl side)representing the respondent would submit that the ownership of thepremises used as factory or even the ownership of the machineries isquite irrelevant as the respondent herein has given complaint for theirregularities found by him at the time of inspection against thepetitioner herein as the proprietor of Hermen Tanning Company whichwas using the said premises for manufacturing purposes with more than22 workers and thus, the petitioner happened to be the occupier ofthe factory. The petitioner herein has simply stated that he isneither a manager nor a owner of the premises used as factory. Hehas not denied that the premises inspected by the respondent on02.12.2008 was used as a factory and that the Factories Act wasapplicable to the said premises. On the other hand conceding thatthe premises inspected by the respondent conformed to the definitionof factories, the petitioner had taken a stand that he was notresponsible for producing the documents required by the Inspector ofFactories at the time of his inspection. The stand taken by thepetitioner as pointed out supra is rather nebulous. No clear cutaverment has been made by the petitioner to the effect that he wasnot doing any manufacturing business using the above said premises.On the other hand he has simply stated that he was doing job work inthe said premises i.e., he was using the factory to manufacture hisown product with the consent of the owner of the premises or thelessee of the premises. It is not his clear case that he simplyentrusted the raw materials to the owner of the premises or thelessee of the premises to process and give it back as a finishedmaterial and that he was there only to help the person who was doingthe tanning work in the said premises. 7. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thepetitioner will not come under the definition of occupier. Section 6(1) of the Factories Act 1948 deals with the grant of approval,permission and licence and also renewal of such licence. Section 7(1) of the Factories Act mandates the occupier of the factory to senda written notice to the Chief Inspector of Factories atleast 15 daysbefore the date he begins to occupy or use any premises as a factory,containing the particulars of name of the factory, name and addressof the occupier etc. Rule 4 (1), (2) and (3) deal with the grant oflicence, registration of the factory and the fees to be levied. Rule12-B (5) mandates that an occupier shall not use any premises as afactory or carry on any manufacturing process in a factory, unless alicence has been issued in respect of such premises and the same isin force for the time being. Similarly Rule 12 says that notice ofoccupation shall be given to the Chief Inspector of Factories inForm No.II. At the time of inspection of the premises by therespondent, Inspector of Factories, no such document to showcompliance with the above said provisions was produced. That is why https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondent has chosen to file a complaint against the petitionerherein under Section 105(1) of the Factories Act. Even now, thepetitioner has not chosen to produce any of the documents showingthat such approval/ licence had been obtained and intimationregarding the occupation of the premises as factory by the petitionerwas given to the Chief Inspector of Factories. Without producing anysuch material, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the initiationof criminal proceedings by invoking the jurisdiction of this Courtunder Section 482 CrPc, to get the same quashed. Materials so farproduced are not enough to come to a conclusion that the prosecutioncannot result in conviction. That being so, this Court sees nosubstance in the contention raised by the petitioner in thispetition. There is no merit in this petition and the same deservesto be dismissed.Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Connected M.P.Nos.1 & 2/09are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkuaTo1. The Inspector of Factories,Division-II, Vellore.2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Chennai.3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Vellore.1 cc To Mr.C.P.Sivamohan, Advocate, SR.22213.Crl.O.P.No.10679 of 2009 SSN(CO)RVL 25.06.2009