1. Anant J. Talaulicar 2. Prakash S. Satsangi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Arun Kumar Mishra
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3399 of 2013 1. Anant J. Talaulicar 2. Prakash S. Satsangi Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Arun Kumar Mishra -------- ..... … Petitioners ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
has been held by this court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr), where in para-22, it has been held as under:- -4- “22. The order taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and order issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., can very well a the composite order but as observed, application of mind would be different in both cases. This application of mind must be reflected in the order itself. The order should not be mechanical. Magistrate has to mention at least that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the persons and what are the prima facie materials to proceed against them. He need not pass a detail judgment evaluating the materials, which are before him. The detail reasons as to why he is taking cognizance or issuing process are not to be mentioned but at least what are the bare minimum prima-facie materials against the accused petitioners should be mentioned in the order issuing summon and prima facie what offence is alleged, in the order taking cognizance.” 5. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Case No. C/2-471 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, are hereby, quashed. 6.
Arguments
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners ------ : : : : ------ 10/ 23.11.2023 Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate. Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate. Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. For the State for the petitioners and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Case No. C/2-471 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. The prosecution report was submitted by the Factory Inspector vide letter No. 494 dated 28.09.2013 in the form of complaint to the learned court alleging therein that on 16.07.2013 one Sanjeev Kumar Kanth, a worker in the M/S Tata Cummins Ltd. Telco township has died in accident. In course of enquiry it was alleged that the Occupier- cum- Managing Director and Plant Manager did not ensure an obstruction free passage way within the factory premises. Further, they did not ensure proper clearing of workplace and floor near the work place which caused the worker to slip and fall on the floor causing severe head injury. This resulted in accidental death of the worker. Thus, both Occupier-cum- Managing Director and the Plant Manager have violated the provisions of section 32 (b) of the Factories Act 1948, which is a penal offence in accordance with Section 92 of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, a complaint case being No.C/2- 471/13 was instituted and accordingly cognizance was taken under Section 92 of the Factories Act by learned A.C.J.M. Jamshedpur. -2- 4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the Occupiers-cum- Managing Director and Factory Manager respectively of the Jamshedpur Plant of M/s Tata Cummins Ltd. He submits that the allegations are made that on 16.07.2013 in the morning hours, one workman namely Sajeev Kumar Kanth punched in the company premises and while going to his workstation for duty, he fell on the ground and became unconscious. He further submits that immediate action was taken by the management and said Kanth was taken to hospital. He further submits that allegations are made for non-compliance of Section 32(b) of the Factories Act. He further submits that the allegations are there that due to water soap solution, the said worker fell down. He further submits that in the said area the machineries are installed and some time some solution like mobil etc. are flown on the floor, however, all precautions were being taken by the factory. He submits that the authorities time and again appreciated the maintenance of the premises of the said company and to buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure-6 of the petition. He submits that in fact the said death has occurred due to convulsion and tongue bite and to buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure-4 to the petition. He further submits that the post-mortem was not allowed by the family members of the deceased in view of that the body was handed over and application to that effect was made to the Officer-in-Charge, which is contained in Annexure-5 to the petition. On these grounds, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. Allam, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is non-compliance of Section 32 of the Factories Act and in view of that the premises of the factory were not maintained and as such, the said workman was fell down and subsequently he died. He submits that the post-mortem has not taken place, in such a situation, if such things are there, this court may not interfere in the matter. -3- 6. It is an admitted fact that the said accident took place in the premises of the factory. The floors, stairs and means of access are the requirement under Section 32 of the Factories Act. The case has been registered under Section 32(b) of the Factories Act, which speaks as under:- “32(b) there shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be provided and maintained safe means of access to every place at which any person is at any time required to work.” 7. Looking into the above Section, the only requirement is only to maintain safe means of access. The document contained in Annexure-6 of the petition, which is issued by the different authorities about the appreciation of maintaining the premises of the Tata Cummins Ltd. suggests that the Tata Cummins Ltd. is appreciated by the several authorities for maintaining the safe means of access for its workmen. Further Annexure-4 is the document issued by the hospital, which suggest that the convulsion and tongue bite were the reasons of death and no head injury was found by the hospital authorities. Annexure-5 is the document signed by none other than the father of the deceased addressed to the Officer-in-Charge requesting to hand over the dead body of his deceased son. In the said application, the witnesses have also signed the document and in view of that the body was handed over. 8. In view of the above, the contention of Mr. Allam, learned counsel appearing for the State is not accepted by this court. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis and considering that the medical report suggests that the death has occurred due to convulsion and tongue bite and there is no head injury, it appears that wrongly the case has been filed against the petitioners. Further the court has perused the order taking cognizance and finds that what are the prima facie materials are there against the petitioners are not disclosed in the order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2023., which is one of the parameters, as
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)