Judgment 1. Petitioners in both the Cr. Misc. applications have challenged the order dated 26.4.2003 passed by C.J.M., Gopalganj in GC-6 of 2003 corresponding to Trial No. 396 of 2003 as well as in GC-5 of 2003 corresponding to Trial No. 395 of 2003. 2. By the impugned orders cognizance has been taken under Section 7A(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 65(3) of the Bihar Factories Rule, 1950. Complainant of both the complaint cases is Inspector of Factory, Chapra Circle, Chapra. GC-6 of 2003 has been filed against the occupier & Manager of M/s Bharat Sugar Mills, Sidhwalia, Gopalganj. GC-5 of 2003 has been filed against the occupier and Manager of M/s Vishnu Sugar Mills, Gopalganj. 3. Similar allegation has been made in both the complaint cases that in course of inspection it was found that the factory is not having ambulance and the occupier and Manager of the Factory has not prepared the health and safety policy. The complainant reminded the management for removal of these anomalies but they have not complied as such they have committed offence under Section 7(a)(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 65(3) of the Bihar Factories Rule, 1950. 4. Mr. Y.V. Giri counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases has placed reliance in the case of Mehmood Ali and K.S. Saxena alias Krishna Sahai Saxena V/s. State of Bihar and Anr., 2006 4 PLJR 158 . 5. It has been submitted that in the aforesaid decision G.C.4 of 2003 corresponding to Trial No. 394 of 2003 has been quashed, which was also filed on the same date and on the same date cognizance was taken by the C.J.M. The facts of that case and allegations were also similar and on consideration of the material this Court has quashed the proceeding of complaint case. 6. Counsel for the State has also admitted this fact that the allegations are same and similar and on consideration of the material this court has quashed the entire criminal proceeding of G.C. 4 of 2003. 7. The facts and allegations of these case are also similar to that of GC-4 of 2003 and following the aforesaid view taken in 2006(4) P.LJ.R. 158 , both these applications are allowed and the impugned orders taking cognizance and any proceedings arising therefore are accordingly quashed.