Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2870 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-These three revisions under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short the Code hereinafter) are directed against the common order dated 19.07.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 81/2003, whereby the trial Court framed charges against all the petitioners in aforesaid three revisions under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short the Act hereinafter). Aggrieved, by the order framing charge, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid revision petitions. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned as also record of the trial Court. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Ashok Kumar in S.B. Cr. Revision No. 562/05 is the Manager of the Factory and therefore, except petitioner Ashok Kumar, none of the other petitioners can be held liable for the offence alleged. He has invited my attention to the complaint filed by the Inspector, Factories and Boilers, Jodhpur. In Para 2 of the complaint, all the petitioners hereinabove have been shown to be the occupiers and partners of the factory. Learned Counsel further contended that Form No. 2 under Rule 4 of the Factories Rule in Column 7, the petitioner Ashok Kumar has been shown to be the Manager and in Column 8 names of possessors of the factory as also the partners have been shown. According to learned Counsel, only Ashok Kumar has been shown to be Manager and therefore, if at all any liability can be fastened, then it can be fastened on the Manager and not the other partners. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revisions and submits that though petitioner Ashok Kumar has been shown as Manager, but so far as occupier of the factory is concerned, including petitioner Ashok Kumar, other partners have also been shown as the occupier of the firm. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revisions and submits that though petitioner Ashok Kumar has been shown as Manager, but so far as occupier of the factory is concerned, including petitioner Ashok Kumar, other partners have also been shown as the occupier of the firm. Section 92 of the Act provides that save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of Section 93, if in, or in respect of , any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued. 5. Keeping in view, the provisions of Section 92 of the Act, not only the Manager of the factory shall be guilty of an offence punishable under the Act, but also the occupier of the factory. In the instant case, petitioner Ashok Kumar is the Manager as well as occupier of the factory, apart from the petitioner Ashok Kumar, the other petitioners are also shown to be occupier of the factory. In this view of the matter, in my view since all the petitioners are said to be the occupier of the factory, at this stage, it cannot be said that they are not liable for the contravention of the provisions of the Act. 6. It is settle law that at the stage of passing order in terms of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the Court is required to peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and if after such consideration, the Court is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the Court may frame a charge against the accused. 7. In Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. 7. In Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) SCC 722 , the Honble Supreme Court held as under: “ If the trial Court decides to frame a charge, there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. It was further held that there is no legal requirement that the Trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedure and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays.” 8. In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 1999 CrLR 499 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charge, the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. If on the basis of materials on record the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence, the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial. 9. In State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 , the Honble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an office then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 10. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an office then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 10. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr., 1989 (1) SCC 715 , the Honble Supreme Court has observed that Court should be loth in interfering at the stage of framing of charge against the accused. Self restraint on the part of the High Court should be the real unless there is glaring injustice. 11. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 52 , the Honble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charges, the truth, veracity and effect of the Judgment which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and Judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. 12. In view of the above settled legal principles, it is clear that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not required to meticulously examine and marshal the material available on record as to whether there is sufficient material against the accused which would ultimately result in conviction. The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence. The Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of the offence. Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing the charge, the guilt or innocence of the accused has to be determined at the time of conclusion of trial after evidence is adduced and not at the stage of framing of the charge and therefore, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to undertake an elaborate enquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighting the material. 13. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned framing charge dated 19.07.2004. No case for interference is made out. The revision petitions are dismissed accordingly. Stay applications also stand dismissed. The record of the trial Court be returned forthwith