Cr.MP.No.1/2006 & Cr.MP.No.1/20071.MLS Rao, Occupier, Addison & Co Limited Chennai-2 v. The State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Factories, III CircleChennai-6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANCrl.OP.No.31437/2006 & 1697/2007Cr.MP.No.1/2006 & Cr.MP.No.1/20071.MLS Rao, Occupier, Addison & Co Limited Chennai-2 .. Petitioner in Cr.OP.31437/06/Accused2.L.Nagarajan, Manager, Addison & Co Limited Chennai-2.. Petitioner in Cr.OP.1697/07/Accused VsThe State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Factories, III CircleChennai-6.. Respondent in both Cr.OPs/ComplainantPrayer:- These Criminal Original Petition are filed under section 482of Crl.P.C.1973 to call for the records in CC.No.3389/2006 and3388/06 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore andquash the same. For Petitioners:Mr.B.Kumar, SC forM/s.King and PatridgeFor Respondents:Mr.S.Senthil Murugan for PPORDER These Criminal Original Petition are filed to quash thecomplaint in CC.No.3389/2006 and 3388/06 on the file of the ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.2. The Petitioners are the Director & ChiefExecutive/Occupier and the Manager of M/s.Addison Co. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company), having their Factory and Officeat Door Nos.4, 18 & 19, Smith Road, Chennai-2. The said Company isregistered under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on the business ofmanufacturing engineering metal cutting tools and machine tools. On11.2.2006 at about 4.30 p.m. in Plant No.1, a minor fire accidentoccurred in a grinding machine. Immediately the power connection wasswitched off and fire alarm was switched on. Thereafter, all theworkers were asked to vacate the place of work immediately and theemployees trained on the usage of fire fighting equipment swung into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ action and the fire was put off. No one was injured and no propertywas damaged. The reason for the minor fire accident was that thecoolant oil supply to the grinding machine was cut off. TheRespondent had filed the complaint before the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore in CC.NO.3389/2006,and 3388/06 alleging that thethere is a violation of Section 38(3) of the Factories Act, 1948(herein after referred to as the Act) read with Rule 61(4)(f) of theTamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 (herein after referred to as theRules). The material used for avoiding spillage of coolant oil wasmade of 'kevlar', which is totally a fire resistant. According tothe Petitioners, the Company had taken all precautions as per theprovisions of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder. 3. According to the Petitioners, the complaint does notdisclose even a prima facie offence nor mentions about any specificviolation of the Rules or Act attributable to the Petitioners.4. Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel for the Petitionersdrew the attention of this court to Section 38(1)(3) of the Act,which empowers the State Government to make the Rules in respect ofthe Factory or Clause or description of factories, requiring themeasures to be adopted to give effect to the provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of Section 38 of the Act. Rule 61(4) of the Rulesdeals with the precautions to be adopted when there is anaccumulation of flammable or explosive substances. The learnedsenior counsel would submit that the Petitioner Company is notdealing with either accumulation of explosive or flammablesubstances, as they are in the business of manufacturing cuttingtools, which does not come under the definition of accumulation offlammable or explosive substances. 5. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners wouldfurther contend that only when an obligation is imposed by the Act orRules framed thereunder on the Petitioner Factory to provide safetymeans or measures to prevent initiation of ignition due to overheating or due to disconnection of coolant oil with the grindingmachine and if that protection measure is not provided by theFactory, then it would amount to violation of the provisions of theAct or the Rules made thereunder. In the absence of such accusation,the Petitioner Factory cannot be prosecuted for such a minor fireaccident, which had occurred due to disconnection of coolant oilsupply to the grinding machine and it is nothing but mere anaccident. The learned senior counsel would further submit that thereis no specific Rule with regard to the safety precautions to thegrinding machine and in fact, the Company had taken all reasonableprecautions as per the statutory provisions by using the materialviz. 'kevlar', which is totally a fire resistant for avoiding thespillage of coolant oil.6. Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 being penal in itscharacter must be construed strictly. There is absolutely noallegation in the complaint that the petitioners have failed toprovide specific precautionary measures intended to the grindingmachine in case of disconnection of coolant oil supply to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grinding machine. Only when it is shown that a particularprecautionary device had not been provided by the Factory, thuscontravening the Rules, then the onus is on the Manager or theOccupier of the Factory to show that the safe guard was provided, butin spite of it, it resulted in the fire accident. 7. Rule 61 deals about fire protection and sub clause 4 ofRule 61 deals about the precautions against ignition. Itspecifically reads that wherever there is a danger of fire orexplosion or accumulation of flammable or explosive substances inair, then all other precautions as are reasonably practicable shallbe taken by the Company to prevent initiation of ignition from allother possible sources, such as open flames, frictional sparks,overheated surfaces of machinery or plant or chemical or physicalchemical reaction and radiant heat.8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not dealing either withaccumulation of explosives or flammable substances. Since theCompany is engaged in the manufacturing of engineering materialcutting and machine tools, there is no chance for accumulation offlammable or explosive substance. Even in the complaint, there is noallegation that there was accumulation of flammable or explosivesubstance and no safe guard is made to prevent ignition from theother possible sources, so as to attract the Rule 61(4)(f) of theTamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950. Mere allegation by the Prosecutionthat the owner has contravened the Rules specified in Rule 61(4)(f)of the Rules is not enough to prove contravention of the Rules,unless it is shown what was wanting in the grinding machine asprescribed by the Rules. Unless there is a specific averment in thecomplaint indicating the nature of the accusation made against theowner or the occupier that they willfully failed to provide the safe-guard, it is not possible for the petitioners to state his defence.In such view of the matter, no liability could be fastened on thepetitioners to have contravened any of the Rules, as alleged by theProsecution.9. For the reasons stated above, criminal proceedingsinitiated in CC.NO.3389/2006,and 3388/06 does not disclose any primafacie offence and hence, the same is liable to be quashed andaccordingly, it is quashed and these Criminal Original Petitions areallowed. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarSrcm https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Factories,III Circle, Chennai-6.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras + 2 CCs to M/s.King & Partridge,Advocates,SR.32022 & 32021Crl.OP.No.31437/2006 & 1697/2007BKY(CO)EM/6.8.09