Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 837 (JHR)

P. Bhattacharjee v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-06

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
Judgment : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, in C/2 Case No. 239 of 1999 against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. In the said order of cognizance, the petitioner has been shown the Occupier of the Factory. 3. C/2 Case No. 239 of 1999 was lodged by the Inspector of Factories, Jamshedpur Circle No.2, Jamshedpur, on 24.9.1999 against the Occupier and Manager of M/s Usha Martin Industries Limited. From the complaint petition, it appears that one female labour was found dead in the godown of the factory with injuries, but the information about this accident was not given as required under Section 88 of the Factories Act, and Rule 96 of the Bihar Factories Rules, making out offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. With the said allegation, the written complaint was filed by the Factory Inspector, on the basis of which, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner in the said case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a short point challenging the impugned order, submitting that both Section 88 of the Factories Act and Rule 96 of the Bihar Factories Rules cast the responsibility upon the Manager of the Factory for giving the information about the accident causing death to the concerned authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the Manager of the Factory and even in the complaint petition, as also in the cognizance order, the petitioner has been shown to be the Occupier of the Factory and accordingly, the offence cannot be said to be made out against the petitioner under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer submitting that the petitioner being the Occupier of the Factory is also liable for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, inasmuch, as Section 92 of the Act makes the both the Occupier and the Manager of the Factory liable for the offences under the Act. 6. 6. Section 88 of the Factories Act, 1948 reads as follows:- “88. Notice of certain accidents.- (1) Where in any factory an 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. ************." Similarly, Rule 96 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 also reads as follows:- “96. Notification of accidents._(1) When any accident specified in the Schedule takes place in a factory, the manager of the factory, shall forthwith send notice thereof by telephone, special messenger or telegram to the Inspector and if the accident is fatal or of such a serious nature that it is likely to prove fatal notice as aforesaid shall also be sent to- (a) the District Magistrate or Sub divisional Officer, (b) the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, and (c) the nearest relative of the injured or deceased person. ************.” 7. Thus, from the plain reading of these provisions, it is apparent that the responsibility of giving the information about the accident is upon the Manager of the Factory, both in the Act and in the Rules, and there is no such responsibility upon the Occupier of the Factory. Even in the complaint petition, the petitioner has been described as the Occupier of the Factory and other co-accused has been described as Manager of the Factory. Same is the position in the order taking cognizance dated 28.9.1999 passed by the learned Court below. In view of the fact that responsibility of giving information to the competent authority about the accident has been casted upon the Manager of the Factory, the non-compliance thereof by the Manager, in my considered view, cannot make out any offence against the Occupier of the Factory. Even though Section 92 of the Act makes the both the Occupier and the Manager of the Factory liable for the offences under the Act, but in the facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner was negligent in not sending the required information about the accident. Even though Section 92 of the Act makes the both the Occupier and the Manager of the Factory liable for the offences under the Act, but in the facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner was negligent in not sending the required information about the accident. Accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner under Section 92 of the Factory Act and the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, so far as this petitioner is concerned. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in C/2 Case No. 239 of 1999, is hereby, set aside as regards the petitioner only. 9. This application is accordingly, allowed.