Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 392 (JHR)

Hal Krishna Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2011-05-02

H.C.MISHRA

body2011
JUDGMENT H.C. Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Govindpur (Barwada) P.S. Case No. 61 of 1996 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1077 of 1996. whereby the Court below has rejected the prayer for discharge of the accused petitioner Bal Krishna Sharma and fixed the case for framing of charge. 3. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 12.4.1996, informant Basiruddin Ansari, who is a Mansion along with other Mansions, was doing the plaster work in newly constructed garage in the factory, namely, M/s Bihar Hard Coke Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., situated at Dhanbad. In the meantime, the garage collapsed and one Mansion Majid Ansari died and other Mansions including the informant Basurriddin Ansari were injured. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Basuruddin Ansari, Govindpur (Barwada) P.S. Case No. 61 of 1996 corresponding to G.R No. 1077 of 1996 was instituted for the 'offence under Sections 288, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-petitioner Bal Krishna Sharma showing him to the Manager of the factory. 4. From perusal of the records, it appears that cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioner, which was challenged before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 665 of 2000 (R). The said criminal miscellaneous was disposed of vide order dated 4.2.2000 giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points before the learned Court below at the time of framing of charge. The said order has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the present revision application. Subsequently, the petitioner took the defence in the Court below that no offence is made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the occurrence took place inside the factory M/s Bihar Hard Coke Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and only the provisions of the Factories Act are applicable to the accused and the accused cannot be tried for any offence under the Indian Penal Code as Special Act prevails over the General Act. It appears that the Court below has taken into consideration the defence of the petitioner and has held that the victim was doing the plaster work in the garage and had died due to collapse of the garage. It appears that the Court below has taken into consideration the defence of the petitioner and has held that the victim was doing the plaster work in the garage and had died due to collapse of the garage. This incident was not covered by any provision of the Factories Act because the work of plastering the garage was not at all concerned with the regular work of the factory M/s Bihar Hard Coke Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and as such, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code was applicable in the present case. The Court below accordingly, rejected the prayer for discharge and fixed up the case for framing of charge by the impugned order dated 19.3.2002, which has been challenged in the present revision application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is absolutely illegal inasmuch, admittedly, the incident took place inside the factory and as such, the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 would be applicable in this case. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards Section 88 of the Factories Act, which says that where in any factory accident occurs which causes death, or which causes any bodily injury by reason of which the person injured is prevented from working for a period of forty- eight hours or more immediately following the accident. or which is of such nature as may be prescribed in this behalf, the manager of the factory shall send notice thereof to such authorities and in such form and within such time, as may be prescribed and where a notice under this section relates to an accident causing death, the authority to whom the notices is sent shall make an inquiry into the occurrence within one month of the receipt of the notice or, if such authority is not the Inspector, cause the Inspector .to make an inquiry within the said period. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that it is only the Inspector of the factories, who could make an enquiry into the matter and the investigation made by the police is absolutely without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that it is only the Inspector of the factories, who could make an enquiry into the matter and the investigation made by the police is absolutely without jurisdiction. 6. In my considered view, the submission of the learned counsel is absolutely misconceived, inasmuch, the section relates to the accident, caused in course of the business of the factory and the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of this section, as the occurrence that had taken place was not in course of normal business of the factory. Rather, the accident had occurred at the time of construction of the garage, which was not at all the manufacturing process of the factory. Entire Chapter-IX of which Section 88 is a part, relates to special provisions in connection with the manufacturing process of the factory with which the present occurrence is not at all connected. 7. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon Section 92 of the Factories Act, which also is not at all applicable to the present case, inasmuch as. it is a penal provision in cases of contravention of the provisions of the said Act or any Rule made therein. No such contravention was pointed out by the learned counsel and in my considered view, even this submission of the learned counsel is absolutely misconceived and cannot be of any benefit to the Petitioner. 8. Learned counsel lastly relied upon Section 105 of the Factories Act, which says that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of an Inspector. Needles to say that even this section is of no help to the petitioner, inasmuch the present case does not relate to any offence under the Factories Act, rather, it relates to the offences under the Indian Penal Code. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction in holding that this incident will not be covered by the provisions of the Factories Act, rather, the work which was going on, was not concerned with the regular work of that factory and accordingly dismissing the prayer for discharge and fixing the case for framing of charge. 10. 10. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed and the Court below is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Application dismissed.