Jharkhand High Court
Binod Kumar Das And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 27 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2008(1)JCR601(JHR)]
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
ORDER R.R. Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report of Bistupur P.S case No. 49 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. case No. 409 of 2006 whereby the case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the petitioners and others.
3. Before adverting to contention raised on behalf of the petitioners the facts of the case needs to be noted which are as follows:
It appears that one Jadunath Soren lodged first information report on 21.2.2006 stating therein that one M/s H.K. Singori and Company was assigned a job by the Management of TISCO for cleaning the Bins in the Sinter Plant area and that he as well as other two persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Dhal and Sukhdeo Karkamar being employees of the said M/s H.K. Singori and Company were asked to clean the Bins and while they were cleaning wall of the Bins the column of dust gave in, as a result of which it fell upon the two persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Dhal and Sukhdeo Karkamar and both of them died. Thereupon, a case was registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 1, Chief of the plant and petitioner No. 2, Head of the Plant and also against other accused persons.
4. Being aggrieved with that, the petitioners have come before this Court whereby they have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation made in the first information report is covered under the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act which is penal in nature and the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 being a special legislation will have overriding effect upon the provisions of general law and, therefore, any prosecution under the general law is not permissible and hence the First Information Report is fit to be quashed.
6. I do find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with the matter regarding investigation and enquiry of the case failing under the Indian Penal Code or any special Act which reads as under:
Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code and other laws-
(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (46 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
7. Thus Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Code provides that in absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in the code shall affect any special or local law for the time being in force. However the conjoint effect of that provision and Sub-section (2) of Section 4 would be as follows:
1. That all offences, whether under the penal code or under any other law, have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code.
2. This rule is subject to qualification that in respect of offences under other laws that is to say, under laws other than Indian Penal Code, if there be an enactment regulating the manner of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences, such enactment will prevail over the code.
3. The provisions of special or local law will prevail over the provisions contained in the Code unless there is specific provisions to the contrary.
8. Having taken notice of the provision of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would be pertinent to take notice of Section 92 of the Factories Act so as to be ascertained as to whether allegation made in the First Information Report is within the ambit of Section 92 of the Factories Act.
9. Section 92 of the Factories Act reads as follows:
General penalty for offences--Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subjected 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:
Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under Section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than (twenty five thousand rupees) in the case of an accident causing death, and (five thousand rupees) in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury.
10. As perusal of the provisions as contained in Section 92 of the Factories Act it is evidently clear that the allegation made in the first information report is well within the ambit of the provisions as contained in Section 92 of the Factories Act.
11. Further I do find that the provision as contained in Section 105 of the Factories Act does speak as to in which manner offences under the Factories Act is to be dealt with. The said provision reads as follows:
Cognizance of the offence--(1) 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.
(2) No Court below that of a Presidency Magistrate or of a Magistrate of the 1st class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
12. Thus, it does appear that the provisions of the Factories Act stipulate relating to investigation, enquiry or trial of the offences falling within the provision of the Factories Act and therefore, the provisions of the Factories Act being a special legislation would prevail over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, it can be said that the investigation, enquiry or the trial relating to the matter falling within the special legislation is not permissible to be gone into under the general law.
13. Under the circumstances, the First Information Report of Bistupur P.S. case No. 49 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. No. 409 of 2006 is hereby quashed so far the petitioners are concerned.
14. In the result, this application is allowed.