Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-Petitioner, while working as Factory Manager in M/s. Sriram Fertilizers & Chemicals, Kota, retired from service on April 6, 1981. While he was working as Factory Manager, an accident took place in the above factory premises on December 25, 1979, when a worker named Gaya Prasad died while working on primary mixture of the Bricketing Department of the Carbide Plant of the factory. 2. Acomplaint was made by the Respondent No. 2 the Dy. Chief Inspector, Factories & Boilers, Kota, under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act of 1948’) in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the petitioner, being the Factory Manager and one Mr. B .D. Pathak, being the occupier of the above factory. The complaint was made on the ground of violation of safety measures as provided under Section 21 of the Act of 1948. 3. Before the trial Court, the petitioner, while denying the charges, also submitted that the co-accused Mr. S.B. Mathur was Incharge Plant Superintendent and it was his duty to enforce compliance of the safety measures given under the Act of 1948. The cognizance was taken by the trial Court against the petitioner, Mr. B.D. Pathak (since dead) and also the other accused Mr. S.B. Mathur. 4. After evidence had been taken on behalf of both the sides, the trial Court vide order dated August 4, 1983, held the petitioner and co-accused Mr. B.D. Pathak guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1948. Since the complaint under Section 101 of the Act of 1948, had already been filed by the petitioner and co-accused B.D. Pathak against Mr. S.B. Mathur, in regard to liability to be fixed on Mr. S.B. Mathur, the trial Court, without passing any order of punishment, further allowed the petitioner and the co-accused Mr. B.D. Pathak to submit their evidence in regard to their allegations against Mr. S.B. Mathur vide order dated August 8, 1983. 5. Petitioner and co-accused Mr. B.D.” Pathak filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota against the above order dated August 4, 1983. During the pendency of the revision petition, co-accused Mr. B.D. Pathak, expired on March 7, 1990, as such, proceedings” against him stood abated. The revision petition was ultimately dismissed by the appellate Court on November 9, 1993. B.D.” Pathak filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota against the above order dated August 4, 1983. During the pendency of the revision petition, co-accused Mr. B.D. Pathak, expired on March 7, 1990, as such, proceedings” against him stood abated. The revision petition was ultimately dismissed by the appellate Court on November 9, 1993. The present writ petition has been filed on December 1, 1993 challenging not only the orders passed by the lower Courts but with a further prayer for quashing the proceedings pending before the trial Court. 6. Mr. K.K. Mebrishi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of S. G. Nain v. Union of india AIR 1992 SC 603 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. 1998 5 SCC 749 , has challenged the orders of the lower Courts mainly on the ground of material irregularities. Main contention of Mr. Mebrishi was that once Respondent No. 5 Mr. S.B. Mathur having admitted that being Incharge Plant Superintendent, he was responsible to enforce the compliance of safety measures provided under the Act of 1948, there was no occasion for the trial Court to hold the petitioner guilty. Mr. Mebrishi has also submitted that the incident took place way back in the year 1979, the allegation is only in regard to not enforcing the safety measures properly and the punishment is also of three months imprisonment, looking to the old age of the petitioner, this Court should intervene and quash the proceedings pending before the trial Court. 7. After having considered the submissions made at the Bar, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the Judgment s cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. 7. After having considered the submissions made at the Bar, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the Judgment s cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. The incident took place in the year 1979; the complaint was filed in the year 1980; one of the co-accused has already died in the year 1990 itself during the pendency of the revision petition before the trial Court; the allegation is only in regard to not adopting safety measures properly, for which even the petitioner, prima facie, was not directly involved and more than 20 years have lapsed, in my opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit prosecution against the petitioner to continue when the petitioner had also retired way back on September 6, 1981 itself It will be rather impossible to arrange fair trial to the petitioner after such a long time. Apart from causing undue harassment to the petitioner at the fag end of his life, it would also be sheer waste of public money and time as well. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, without going into the legality of the orders passed by the Courts below, even otherwise, intervention of this Court under its writ jurisdiction is justified. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the complaint, as also the prosecution, against the petitioner in the present case are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.