1. Punit Kumar Poddar 2. Ravi Lal v. 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Awdesh Kumar Singh
Case Details
Cr.M.P. No. 2478 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2478 of 2014 1. Punit Kumar Poddar 2. Ravi Lal Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Awdesh Kumar Singh --- …Petitioners …Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For State --- --- : Mr. Kalyan roy, Advocate Mr.Deepak Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Advocate 06/15.04.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. Prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2014 arising out of complaint case no. C III-124 of 2014 (TR No. 78 of 2014) pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Complaint case is filed alleging therein “i. One inspection was carried out in the workshop of the petitioner on 31.03.2014 by the opposite party no 2 and one more person under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. ii. During inspection it was found that existing building was being extended in the 2nd floor although the permission for extension of the building was not obtained as per rule 3 of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950. iii. At the time of inspection 2 persons namely Sri Bhola Nayak and Ravi Nayak were questioned and they informed the complainant that they have not been issued identity card in terms of Rule 80(A) of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950. It is also alleged that no register was produced showing the issuance of identity card and both the said persons had put their respective signatures after the enquiry. iv. During the inspection two big Air Compressors were found and were being used for cleaning and washing and it is alleged that the two compressor were not inspected by the competent Authority and during inspection no certificate was produced showing two compressors. According to the complainant this amounted the violation of section 31 of the Act and Rule 57 of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950. It was further alleged that 1 of 3 inspection of the said Cr.M.P. No. 2478 of 2014 as per Rule 57(9) the certificate was required to be produced at the time of inspection. v. In the complaint petition it has been mentioned that the copy of the inspection report was handed over to the petitioner No. 2. vi. In the complainant petition itself it has been mentioned that a detailed inspection report was sent vide letter No. 21 dated 04.04.2014 by registered post in which one week time was granted to comply the direction as mentioned therein. It was alleged that in spite of expiry of one week the compliance report has not been received. On the basis of aforesaid allegations the conclusion was drawn by the complainant that the petitioners have willfully violated the provision of Factories Act, 1948 which is punishable under section 92 and 95 of the said Act and accordingly the request was made to the learned Court to take cognizance under section 106 of Factories Act, 1948.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no. 1 is the director of Premsons Motor Udyog Private Limited. The petitioner no. 2 is the Manager of the said company. By way of referring the Annexure-3 series he submits that the petitioner, however, produced the necessary documents and record with regard to drawing attention marked in red ink and also pointed out form has also been submitted. By way of referring Anenxure-4 he submits that the rest of the directions were also complied with by the letter dated 16.06.2014. According to him the maliciously the present case has been lodged by the Factory Inspector who is opposite party no. 2 in haste without following the statutory provision in the light of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 as well as the Factories Act, 1948. He submits that in view of Rule 102 of the Bihar Factories Rules 1950 the compliance is required to be done within 7 days of receipt of any notice wherein the complaint allegations is made, from the date of issuance of the notice. He submits that the maliciously the present case is lodged by the then factory inspector who was going to superannuate on 30.04.2014 and the present case was filed on 24.04.2014 six days prior to his retirement. By way of referring para 13 he submits that certain demand was there by the opposite party no. 2 which has been disclosed in the said para and that’s why the maliciously the present case been lodged. He draws the attention of the court to the order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2014 and submits that this order is not in accordance 2 of 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2478 of 2014 with law. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that the irregularities were found in the said company. And that’s why the case has been lodged. She submits that the notice has also been served on 31.03.2014 and in view of that the case is fit to be tried and this petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. In the compliant petition itself, it has been stated that orally the company was directed to comply the provisions of the factories act and in view of Rule 102 of Factories Rules, 1950 the compliance is to be done within seven days of receiving the notice and in the notice it is stated to comply from the date of notice which is against the mandate of law and for non-compliance in view of provisions of Factories Act the Manager and Occupier under the said Factories Act to comply the same. The petitioner no. 1 is the Director of company. It is not disclosed how he is responsible for day to day affairs of the company. The Annexures annexed to the petition suggest that the petitioners have complied the said notice and the irregularities pointed out was rectified which has been brought to the knowledge of the competent authorities. The Court has looked into the order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2014 and finds that this order is the composite order and the satisfaction of the learned court is not recorded which is the one of the requirement to pass a composite order of cognizance and summoning and the word ‘cognizance’ is fill up in the blank space which further suggest that without applying the judicial mind cognizance has been taken. 7. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2014 arising out of Complaint Case No. C III-124 of 2014 (TR No. 78 of 2014) pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is quashed and this petition is allowed. MM (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 3 of 3