ORDER : COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with C.C.Nos.120 to 127 of 2015 respectively on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet and quash the same. All these Criminal Original Petitions filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.120 to 127 of 2015 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet (trial Court). 2. Since all the cases in C.C.Nos.120 to 127 of 2015 arise out of common show cause notices, dated 14.01.2015 in Na.Ka.(F)No.94/2015, this Court disposes all these Criminal Original Petitions by way of common order. 3. The gist of the case in C.C.Nos.120 to 127 of 2015 is that M/s. Renault Nissam Automotive India Private Limited is situated at plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Oragadam, Mattur Post, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram (For convenience and clarity hereinafter referred to as 'RNAIPL'). RNAIPL is a registered factory under Section 2(m)(i) of the Factories Act, 1948. RNAIPL is a Joint Venture of Renault group BV in Netherlands and Nissan Motor Company Limited, Japan formed under an Memorandum of Understanding with Government of Tamil Nadu. RNAIPL is engaged in the manufacture of Renault and Nissan branded passengers cars. The plant is located at SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram in 640 acres of land. The factory has started its production and has all facilities including canteen, medical centre, creche, rest rooms in each block providing working conditions for the workers. The petitioners, who are holding the posts of Manager and Owner/Occupier, are responsible persons of the factory for all non-compliance of the Acts and its Rules and necessary penal action under the Act can be taken against them if any violation in the factory. 4. On 27.12.2014, the respondent conducted inspection in the factory premises and found that on 26.12.2014, one of the contractor of the factory viz., M/s.Suganj Eco Chemicals Private Limited was carrying out descaling work at the Utility section in Turbo Compressor Cooler and Chiller and Evaporator using chemical called Clout (a mix of Sulphamic Acid, Di Methyl Benzyl Chloride, IPA, Sodium Nitrate, Nitric Acid, Oxalic Acid, Surfactant). The said contractor by deploying four of his personnels viz., Haja Mohideen, B.Boopalan, P.Kannan and R.Sundaravaradan carried out the said work. The said contractor by deploying four of his personnels viz., Haja Mohideen, B.Boopalan, P.Kannan and R.Sundaravaradan carried out the said work. The contractor carried clout chemical in 12 plastic cans with a capacity of 35 liters in TATA Ace and after bringing the vehicle inside the factory and parking it near the compressor room, they removed 8 such cans inside the compress room and carrying out their work. At about 04.00 p.m., the driver P.Kannan was carrying about 20 liters of clout chemical in open can. While walking near the compressor area, due to slippery floor due to water spreading, he slipped and fell on the floor and the clout chemical spilled all over his body, on his head, face, chest, legs, back and caused acid burns and he suffered 45% burn injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Occupational Health Centre inside the factory. Thereafter, he was taken to Annai Arul Hospital, Mudichur, where he succumbed to death at about 02.10 a.m., early hours on the next day. 5.On receipt of the information regarding the death of said P.Kannan, the respondent conducted inspection on 27.12.2014 in the factory premises and found the following violations:- P.Kannan was allowed to handle hazardous chemicals without providing proper training and protective gears such as PVC gloves, face mask, PVC apron. He was given cotton apron and allowed to handle the clout chemical in open can. Due to slippery floor, he fell down and clout chemical spilled all over his body and succumbed to death. It is revealed that in the place of handling clout chemicals, quick acting valve at the height of 1.25 cm not placed with adequate water. Since there was no water sprinkler available, the injured P.Kannan could not be showered immediately which accelerated his death. On 21.02.2014, with condition, an approval was given for installation of machine shop, casting shop and also installation of ten air changes in mechanical ventilation. The petitioners without complying with the conditions, running the factory. Rectification on placing of machineries in the proper place to be carried out and compliance report was yet to be filed. For the persons who are employed in descaling activity, no proper medical examination was carried out to find out whether they are fit to handle acid alkaline and no records maintained in this regard. Rectification on placing of machineries in the proper place to be carried out and compliance report was yet to be filed. For the persons who are employed in descaling activity, no proper medical examination was carried out to find out whether they are fit to handle acid alkaline and no records maintained in this regard. Information with regard to death of P.Kannan in Form-18 was not submitted within 12 hours of the accident. Identify cards not issued to the employees and contract labourers even after completion of a month, under Form-25. Likewise, no photo identity card was issued to the contract labourers before completion of a month from date of joining. The agreement, dated 26.12.2014 with M/s.Suganj Eco Chemicals Private Limited, Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai for descaling work not submitted under prescribed form. The details and particulars of the contract labourers not properly maintained in the registers. Citing the above violations, show cause notices issued to the petitioners on 14.01.2015 along with the inspection report. On 23.02.2015, the petitioners sent their replies to the respondent. Not satisfied with the same, the above complaints filed by the respondent which are under challenge. The incidents in the show cause notices, dated 14.01.2015 were split up and separate complaints have been filed against the petitioners. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners viz., Calin Macdonald and Toshihiko Sano are the Manager and Owner/Occupier of RNAIPL. The petitioners are the Deputy Managing Director and Managing Director of RNAIPL, but in the complaints, it is notified as Manager and Owner/Occupier, hence, the petitioners do not fall under the definition of the Manager and Owner/Occupier. He further submitted that the cognizance order does not contain any subjective satisfaction of the trial Court and application of mind, hence, the cognizance order against the petitioners is bad in law. The petitioners sent their replies to the show cause notice well before launching the prosecution, but the same were not referred neither in the sanction order nor in the complaints. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that immediately after the accident, the petitioners informed the same to the respondent without any delay. Since the accident happened on 26.12.2014, a holiday, the information could not reach the respondent immediately by way of prescribed form. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that immediately after the accident, the petitioners informed the same to the respondent without any delay. Since the accident happened on 26.12.2014, a holiday, the information could not reach the respondent immediately by way of prescribed form. On receipt of the information, the respondent inspected the factory on the next day of the death of P.Kannan i.e., on 27.12.2014. He further submitted that descaling work is the maintenance related operations, which was carried out during the scheduled shut down period. Such operations are being statutorily conducted twice in a year. During such operations, the maintenance related activities are entrusted to the registered contractors, who has got sufficient as well as adequately trained personnels to carry out the required maintenance activities. These maintenance works are being monitored by the petitioners. The registered contractor M/s.Suganj Eco Chemicals Private Limited, earlier on three occasions, was engaged to descale turbo compressor cooler, chiller, evaporator situated within the utility area of the factory premises. The said registered contractor has labourers under contract basis and engaged Haja Mohideen, B.Boopalan, P.Kannan and R.Sundaravaradan as though they are trained personnels with requisite skill. The sourcing of chemicals, transportation, utilization of the same and cleaning works are independently carried out by them. The petitioners have no say or control on the maintenance work carried out by the said independent contractor. 7.He further submitted that in this case, immediately after the accident, the victim P.Kannan was taken to the Occupational Hospital Centre which is situated within the factory premises and thereafter, for better treatment, he was shifted to Annai Aurl Hospital, Mudichur, where despite best treatment, P.Kannan passed away. The show cause notices were issued by the respondents on 14.01.2015. After seeking time on 27.01.2015, the petitioners gave their detailed replies on 23.02.2015. The show cause notices were issued by the respondents on 14.01.2015. After seeking time on 27.01.2015, the petitioners gave their detailed replies on 23.02.2015. The replies, dated 23.02.2015 were given by the petitioners in reference to the Factories Act, 1948 and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 informing that personal protective equipment are provided to the employees based on the manufactures recommendation in the Material Safety Data Sheet; floors are maintained free from slippery; body wash shower with eye wash fountain in the area are installed; revised drawing will be submitted for approval, mechanical ventilation facility is installed in machine shop, report of measuring the air changes will be submitted; pre-employment examination is normally done for employees deployed in hazardous operations; since this was a non-routine maintenance activity and done during shutdown time, the pre-employment medical examination could not be arranged; the death of P.Kannan was informed to the respondent office immediately, Form-18 alone could not be submitted within 12 hours as the day happened to be a holiday (Saturday) and hence, it was submitted on the subsequent working day (Monday-29.12.2014); as a principal employer, the contract employees are issued Form-25B on a monthly basis; identity cards are issued in the prescribed Form-25C to contract employees within one month from the date of joining; the contractors were employed following the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Tamil Nadu Contract Labour Rules, 1975; amended list of contractors submitted on 18.03.2015 and Register of Contractors is being maintained and the copy of the same submitted. 8.Further, in the replies, it was submitted that though the service provider is a specialized/experienced person who had successfully done scaling work thrice before with the same crew trained by them, unfortunately the incident was happened; further in the factory four qualified medical officers are deployed in the Occupational Health Centre, advertisements issued for recruitment of Factory Medical Officer in the dailies and soon more Medical Officers to be employed; Creche facilities made available and notified vide letter, dated 15.09.2011 to the respondent; five Qualified Welfare Officers are currently appointed and the same was duly approved by the respondent by communication, dated 12.03.2014. Hence, the replies to show cause notices answered all the queries with particulars. 9.Despite giving detailed explanations by the petitioners, nothing is found in the complaints and the prosecution has been launched without application of mind. Hence, the replies to show cause notices answered all the queries with particulars. 9.Despite giving detailed explanations by the petitioners, nothing is found in the complaints and the prosecution has been launched without application of mind. This is not the object of the Act and its Rules. Thus, in sum and substances, all the violations pointed out by the respondent were rectified and complied with within short period. On receipt of the replies, the respondent not made any reference with regard to the continuation of violations in the complaint as well in the sanction order. The sanctioning authority without considering the replies and compliances, mechanically issued sanction order to prosecute the petitioners. Added to it, the trial Court while taking the complaints on file, not considered these aspects. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that though in the complaints there is a reference to the replies sent by the petitioners, there is no advertance to the same. In the complaints, without arraying the factory as one of the accused, the Manager and Owner/Occupier have been arrayed as accused. For this point, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Aneeta Hada Versus God Father Travels and Tours Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 ”. 10.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as far as the petitioner viz., Toshihiko Sano is concerned, he is only an Owner/Occupier of the factory. This Court in the case of “Ness Wadia Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/3963/2022” held that 'The role, responsibility and duty cast on Manager and Occupier are not one and the same. Further, the 'Occupier' under the Factories Act, cannot be omnipresent, in order to ensure that every requirement set out under the Rules are adhered to and complied with by everyone working in the factory.'. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions for the preposition that the reply to the show cause notice was not considered and no reason given for the same is bad in law. Further, the sanction order does not reflect application of mind, hence, the case is liable to the quashed. State of Gujarat Versus Kansara Manilal Bhikhalal reported in AIR 1964 SC 1893 . K.Masthan Rao Versus State reported in 2014 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 523. Further, the sanction order does not reflect application of mind, hence, the case is liable to the quashed. State of Gujarat Versus Kansara Manilal Bhikhalal reported in AIR 1964 SC 1893 . K.Masthan Rao Versus State reported in 2014 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 523. L.Ganesh Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020 (2) CTC 666 . Dr.Vinoth Nowal & Anr. Versus State of Tamil Nadu in Crl.O.P.Nos.9742 & 9743 of 2021, dated 23.09.2021. Ness Wadia Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/3963/2022. Samriddhi Mondal Versus State of Tamil Nadu in Crl.O.P.No.7966 of 2022, dated 06.07.2022. 12.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners without prejudice to their contention on merits, submitted that M/s.Suganj Eco Chemicals Private Limited paid compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) for the accidental death of P.Kannan. The parents and two sisters of P.Kannan have received the said amount and acknowledged the same by way of MOU. The payment particulars by way of demand draft are recorded. Added to it, the funeral expenses of Rs.25,000/- also paid. In the MOU, it is recorded that P.Kannan was provided with all safety gears while he was doing descaling work and the death had taken place due to accidental slip. The copy of the MOU and demand draft, dated 29.12.2014 are filed in the typed set of papers. Hence, he prayed for quashing the complaints filed against the petitioners. 13.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent filed detailed counter for each Criminal Original Petitions and made his submissions that the petitioners, who are the Manager and Owner/Occupier jointly admitted the commission of crime as per the document annexed in the complaints. Both of them admitted about the accident and death of P.Kannan, who is a contract labour engaged for descaling work in the factory. The accident had taken place within the factory premises of the petitioners. Hence, they are responsible persons and liable to answer for the accident and further, they ought to have strictly followed the conditions stipulated under the Act and its Rules. In the replies, the petitioners admit the incident and violations committed by them. After admitting the same, the question of filing the quash applications would not arise and the same are liable to the dismissed. In the replies, the petitioners admit the incident and violations committed by them. After admitting the same, the question of filing the quash applications would not arise and the same are liable to the dismissed. In this case, the accident took place on 26.12.2014 while carrying out descaling activity at the Utility section in Turbo compressor cooler and Chiller and Evaporator using a chemical called clout which is a mixture of sulphamic Acid, Di Methyl Benzyl Chloride, IPA, Sodium Nitrate, Nitric Actid, Oxalic Acid, Surfactant. The contractor namely M/s.Suganj Eco Chemicals Private Limited deployed four persons including the deceased P.Kannan, Driver of the Tata Ace vehicle to handle hazardous chemicals, which was lifted in open can. The said P.Kannan was carrying about 20 litres of clout chemical in the open bucket without any cover/cap. While working near the compressor area, due to slippery floor, he fell down, the clout chemicals spilled all over his body and he suffered 45% of burn injures and he died. The loss of life was mainly due to hazardous chemical carried on in open can and the floor was slippery. The person who carried the chemical was not provided with safety and protective gears which reveals that none of the persons was serious about health and physical safety aspects even while handling acidic nature chemicals. Even there was no water sprinkler, which is mandatory to be installed in a place handling the chemicals, which could have saved the life of the person concerned immediately after burn injury if his body can be cooled down immediately. 14. He further submitted that the respondent conducted inspection on 27.12.2014 and finding several lapses, issued show cause notice to the Manager and Owner of the factory to rectify all the non-compliances, errors, mistakes and lapses etc. Both the petitioners sent their replies to the respondent on 23.02.2015. After obtaining sanction order, the complaints filed before the trial Court on 20.03.2015, which are under challenge. He further submitted that the petitioners are prosecuted since they are Manager and Owner/Occupier of the factory. In the replies to the show cause notice, they admit that they have taken steps to rectify the lapses and also admitted that they have not verified with the contractor to confirm whether the contract labourers were properly trained to handle hazardous materials. He further submitted that the petitioners are prosecuted since they are Manager and Owner/Occupier of the factory. In the replies to the show cause notice, they admit that they have taken steps to rectify the lapses and also admitted that they have not verified with the contractor to confirm whether the contract labourers were properly trained to handle hazardous materials. Whether there was shutdown or stoppage of production and scalling work carried out by contractor with proper care and precautions, it is the duty of the Occupier and Manager to ensure the same and provide professional standards in order to avoid accidents and loss of lives. 15.It is further submitted that the points raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners to quash the complaints, are factual in nature, which unnecessarily to be decided only during trial and not in these Quash Petitions. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the payment of any compensation by the petitioners would not absolve themselves from the commission of offence. 16.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 17.It is seen that the accident had taken on 26.12.2014 in the factory premises while carrying out descaling work by M/s.Suganj Eco Chemicals Private Limited. M/s.Suganj Eco Chemicals Private Limited is a specialized/experienced person, who had successfully done scaling work thrice before, with the same crew trained by them. The descaling and cleaning of compressor is a statutory compliance, which has to be done twice yearly. The use of chemical for scaling work is permitted and not disputed. The contractor as well as the contract employees are experienced persons, who are regularly doing descaling work. Admittedly, on the date of descaling, the factory was under shut down and only the maintenance work was going on. Since independent contract work assigned to the contractor, the petitioners have no direct control on the maintenance work carried out by the said independent contractor. 18.The petitioners by way of replies to the show cause notices, dated 14.01.2015 clearly referred to the provisions of law and the steps taken by them in providing all facilities including safety gears to the employees of the factory and contract labourers. 18.The petitioners by way of replies to the show cause notices, dated 14.01.2015 clearly referred to the provisions of law and the steps taken by them in providing all facilities including safety gears to the employees of the factory and contract labourers. The details of appointment of qualified Medical Officers, informing the authorities about the accident, giving training to the employees of the factory, placing of machinery and submission of blueprint are all mentioned in the replies to the show cause notices. It is not in dispute that the descaling work was done during shutdown period by an independent contractor. Though the replies of the petitioners shown in the complaints as listed document No.4, there is no advertence or reference to the same in the complaints or in the sanction order. Even there is nothing to show whether replies are accepted or rejected if so for what reason. 19.Further, the particulars with regard to what are the violations which are still continuing after compliance does not find place either in the sanction order or in the complaints. It is settled principle that through counter, the respondent cannot improve and enlarge the case in the absence of any reference to these vital facts in the sanction order as well as in the complaints. Hence, it has got no relevance or gain credence. 20.The aim and purpose of the inspection in the factory is that if the inspecting official finds any violations, the same to be informed to the concerned officials of the factory by way of show cause notice and to ensure its compliances. If the violations continued and not complied with, then the penal action follows. In this case, admittedly, after the inspection, show cause notices were issued by the respondent and the petitioners submitted their compliance report/replies rectifying the violations. Once the violations are rectified ensuring all safety and welfare measures in place, no further prosecution to be initiated. Here, eventhough the petitioners have rectified the violations noted down by the respondent in the factory, the respondent launched prosecution and filed complaints against the petitioners. Added to it, the trial Court not considered the compliances of the petitioners, took cognizance and issued summons. From the complaints and sanction order, it is seen that there is no reference to the reply given by the petitioners, dated 23.02.2015 and there is nothing to show any continuation of violations. Added to it, the trial Court not considered the compliances of the petitioners, took cognizance and issued summons. From the complaints and sanction order, it is seen that there is no reference to the reply given by the petitioners, dated 23.02.2015 and there is nothing to show any continuation of violations. 21.Following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “State of Gujarat Versus Kansara Manilal Bhikhalal reported in AIR 1965 SC 1893” this Court in the cases of “K.Masthan Rao Versus State reported in 2014 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 523; Dr.Vinoth Nowal & Anr. Versus State of Tamil Nadu in Crl.O.P.Nos.9742 & 9743 of 2021, dated 23.09.2021; Ness Wadia Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/TN/3963/2022; L.Ganesh Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020 (2) CTC 666 ” held that 'the respondent cannot ignore the reply to the show cause notice and cannot proceed to lodge the complaint. In terms of Rule 102 of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950, the Occupier, Owner or Manager of a factory shall furnish information to an Inspector for the purpose of satisfying himself whether any of the provisions of the Act has been complied with or whether any order of the Inspector has not carried out. Thus, the Rules contemplates an opportunity for compliance.'. In this case, the compliance are done and the same are reported to the concerned authorities forthwith. But for the reasons best known, the reply of the petitioners was not considered by the respondent. As noticed above, there is no reference to the reply submitted by the petitioners either in the sanction order or in the complaints. 22.In the case of “Pepsi Foods Limited Versus Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 SCC (Crl.) 1400” the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the learned Magistrates ought to have scrutinized the evidence brought on record and thereafter, issue summons to the accused. 23. The object of the Act is for welfare of the labour. Various restrictions and conditions are imposed in the interest of public health and welfare of the labourers employed in the factory. It is not the case of the respondent that the explanation offered by the petitioners, not tangible and lacks bonafide. 24. In the light of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the complaints are vitiated on account of total non-application of mind. It is not the case of the respondent that the explanation offered by the petitioners, not tangible and lacks bonafide. 24. In the light of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the complaints are vitiated on account of total non-application of mind. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by making the petitioners to undergo the ordeal of facing a trial. 25. In the result, the proceedings in C.C.Nos.120 to 127 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet are quashed. Accordingly, all these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.