JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel, for the applicant and Shri Miraza, learned A.P.P., for the respondents. 3. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') filed by the applicant/accused with a prayer that the proceedings in private Criminal Complaint Case No. 580 of 1999 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, be quashed and the impugned order directing to issue process for the offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') be set aside. 4. Brief facts are that the respondent No. 2 was working as Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health, appointed by the State Government. He has filed private complaint on 22-9-1999 on the allegation that the applicant who is the proprietor of Bajaj Trade Development Ltd. has contravened the provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder, particularly Schedule XXIII, Rule 6(1)(a) of Rule 114 of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') punishable under section 92 of the Act. 5. The respondent No. 2 complainant had visited the factory of the applicant on 24-6-1999 for the purpose of inspection and found that highly inflammable liquid (thinner) is used in manufacturing process at the factory of the applicant. The complainant found that drums containing 200 litres of thinner were found to have been stored in the factory which was in contravention of the aforesaid provisions. Accordingly he noted down the remarks in writing in the inspection book maintained at the factory. The applicant was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 5-7-1999 to which a reply was given on 15-7-1999 and the applicant denied all the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice. 6. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel, for the applicant contended that the drum containing 200 litres of thinner was kept outside the working room and thus it was separated totally from the manufacturing process. He contended that the applicant's factory requires thinner for the purpose of manufacturing process, without which the production in the factory is not possible. 6. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel, for the applicant contended that the drum containing 200 litres of thinner was kept outside the working room and thus it was separated totally from the manufacturing process. He contended that the applicant's factory requires thinner for the purpose of manufacturing process, without which the production in the factory is not possible. He contended that all the switches, electric fittings of the printing machines were of flame proof type and consequently in order to identify the printing shade it requires natural light which is maintained only with the use of tube lights. Electrical panal boards, electric switches and electric lights are away from the manufacturing process, fumes, if any. The produce are carried away outside the factory through exhaust. It is contended that the applicant has taken all the precautions as required by the law. The thinner is to be used for mixing of printing ink and, therefore, the same is taken inside the factory and once the printing ink is prepared with the use of thinner and fed into the machine then it is taken out and placed at its designated place outside the premises. He contended that fire fighting apparatus and water supply is also maintained as per the requirement of provision 71-B of the Rules and necessary practical measures are taken to prevent fire and explosion. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that in such circumstances the cognizance taken in Criminal Case No. 580 of 1999 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is not sustainable in law and if the proceedings are allowed to continue then it would result in miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. The learned Counsel, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code for quashing of the proceedings. 7. The learned A.P.P. contended that 200 litres of thinner was found stored in a drum inside the working room at the time of visit of the respondent No. 2 on 24-6-1999. He contended that thinner is highly inflammable liquid (mixture of 80% S.D.S. (Special Denatured Spirit) and 20% Butanol) and there was a danger of fire and explosion from the accumulation of this highly inflammable liquid in air. He contended that all the electrical apparatus viz. motors of printing machines, flexo printing machines, electric panel boards, electrical switches, electric wiring, electric lights etc. He contended that all the electrical apparatus viz. motors of printing machines, flexo printing machines, electric panel boards, electrical switches, electric wiring, electric lights etc. are installed inside the work room and were of ordinary type and were not of approved flame proof type and therefore, the electrical apparatus did not exclude the risk of ignition and they were a source of ignition. Therefore, he contended that the applicant has contravened the provisions of Schedule XXIII, Rule 6(1)(a) of the Act read with Rule 114 of the Rules. He, contended that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was perfectly right in taking cognizance of the offence against the applicant and, in the circumstances, the application being devoid of any merit may kindly be rejected. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for both the parties. I may usefully reproduce Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules which read as under: "4. Enclosed system for conveying highly flammable liquids: Wherever it is reasonably practicable, highly flammable liquids shall be conveyed within a factory in totally enclosed system consisting of pipe lines, pumps and similar appliances from the storage tank or vessel to the point of use. Such enclosed systems shall be so designted, installed, operated and maintained as to avoid leakage or the risk of spilling. 5. Preventing formation of flammable mixture with Air: Wherever there is possibility for leakage or spill of highly flammable liquor or flammable compressed gas from an equipment, pipe line, valve, joint or other part of a system all practicable measures shall be taken to contain, drain off or dilute such spills or leakage as to prevent formation of flammable mixture with air. 6. Prevention of Ignition: (1) In every room, work place or other location where highly flammable liquor or flammable combustible gas in stored, conveyed, handled or used or where there is danger of fire or explosion from accumulation of highly flammable liquid of flammable compressed gas in air, all practicable measures shall be taken to exclude the sources of ignition. 6. Prevention of Ignition: (1) In every room, work place or other location where highly flammable liquor or flammable combustible gas in stored, conveyed, handled or used or where there is danger of fire or explosion from accumulation of highly flammable liquid of flammable compressed gas in air, all practicable measures shall be taken to exclude the sources of ignition. Such precautions shall include the following: (a) All electrical apparatus shall either be excluded from the area of risk or they shall be of such construction and so installed and maintained as to prevent the danger of their being a source of ignition." Bare reading of the aforesaid Rules would show that inflammable liquid is to be stored away from the working room and all electrical apparatus shall either be excluded from the area of risk or they shall be of such construction and so installed and maintained as to prevent the danger of their being a source of ignition. In the present case, 200 litres of thinner, which is admittedly an inflammable liquid, was stored inside the factory in the working room and moreover the electrical apparatus which were used were not of an approved type. 9. The learned A.P.P. in his affidavit in reply has mentioned that "Thinner" (a mixture of 80% of S.D.S. (special denatured spirit) and 20% of Butanol) is used in the manufacturing process in the printing process of bags of H.D.P.E. and P.P. material. The drum containing 200 litres of the same was found stored in the factory. There was a danger of fire or explosion from the accumulation of this highly flammable liquid in the air. All electrical apparatus, viz. motors of the printing machine, flexo printing machines, electric panel boards, electrical switches, electric wirings, electric lights were inside the work room and they were of ordinary type. All the electrical apparatus described above were not of approved flame proof and, therefore, they could be a source of ignition. 10. All electrical apparatus, viz. motors of the printing machine, flexo printing machines, electric panel boards, electrical switches, electric wirings, electric lights were inside the work room and they were of ordinary type. All the electrical apparatus described above were not of approved flame proof and, therefore, they could be a source of ignition. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that no prima facie case has been made out against the applicant for contravening the provisions of Schedule XXIII , Rule 6(1)(a) of the Act read with Rule 114 of the Rules cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the thinner was stored in huge quantity in a drum inside the working room and the electrical apparatus which were used were not got approved from the Competent Authority for installation and, therefore, prima facie it could be said that these electrical apparatus could be a source of ignition. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is nothing on record from which it could be said that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of law and there is no reason for this Court to exercise its inherent power under section 482 of the Code. There is no material to show that it is expedient in the interest of justice to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In the result, I am of the firm opinion that there is no merit in the present application and the same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Application dismissed. -----