Telangana High Court
Sri. Pradeep Vasant Dhobale And Another vs The State Of Telanganaand Another on 7 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5103 & 5083 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
The Criminal Petition No.5103 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.93 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against them are under Section 41 of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules 61-F (1) of the Factories Rules, Section 7-A of the Factories Act.
2. The Criminal Petition No.5083 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.95 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 7-A 2 (C) and 41 of the 2 Factories Act, 1948 and Rule 61 F (2) and (3) of the Factories Rules.
3. Heard Sri.G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the first petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri.N.Ramachander Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for second petitioner/accused No.2, and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The Lis involved in both the Criminal Petitions is the same, parties are common and therefore, the same were considered together.
5. In S.T.C.No.93 of 2015 the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein as follows:
i. ITC Limited., Paperboards and Speciality Papers Division Unit: Bhadrachalam, Sarapaka (V & M), Khammam District, was inspected by Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Warangal, and Inspector of Factories, Khammam on 22-01-2014. 3
ii. During the Inspection, they have found that the said factory failed to construct and maintain a checkered plate platform of near tail end pulley of fuel belt conveyor No.2 of biomass plant in a safe manner by providing adequate support under the checkered plate and complete welding, and allowed a contract worker to clean fuel dust on checkered plate platform near tail and pulley of fuel belt conveyor No.2 at a height of 7 meters from the ground is a potential source of risk of bodily injury.
iii. It was further alleged that on 21-01-2014 at about 12-00 am., when a contract worker by name Mohd.Shakeer aged about 32 years was required to clean spillage fuel dust from checkered plate platform near tail end pulley of fuel BC-2, the welding of one of the checkered plates of the platform gave way and he fell down on the concrete ground floor from an height of 7 meters and received grievous multiple injuries and was admitted in the hospital.4
6. Thus the accused have contravened the provisions of Section 41 of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules 61-F (1) of the Factories Rules, Section 7-A of the Factories Act, and therefore, they are liable for punishment under Section 92 of Factories Act.
7. Both Sri.G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the first petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri.N.Ramachander Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for second petitioner/accused No.2, would submit that both the complaints are barred by limitation U/Sec.106 of Factories Act. Before filing the complaint vide S.T.C.No.93 of 2015 the Inspector of Factories has not inspected the factory and no showcause notice was issued under Section 9 of Factories Act. Though the factory has taken all the security measures, the injured/victim has not followed the said instructions. However, on humanitarian grounds, the factory has paid compensation to him. The said victim Md.Shakeer is 5 working in the factory as on today. With the said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel sought to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.93 of 2015.
8. Likewise, in S.T.C.No.95 of 2015 the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein as follows:
i. M/s.ITC Limited., Paperboards and Specialty Papers Division, situated at Sarapaka Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District, was inspected by Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Warangal, and Inspector of Factories, Khammam on 07-12-2012.
ii. During the Inspection, they have found that the said factory failed to restrict the movement of person at raw material feeding conveyors in chipped house area and failed to prove proper supervision over the movement of vehicles that came for unloading raw materials (subabullah wood and eucalyptus wood) at the conveyors C1, C2 and C3 and there is a potential source risk of bodily injury.6
iii. On 05-12-2012 at 05-30 am., Sri.G.Raman, aged about 63 years driver of Balaji Transports, Tirunelvelly of Tamilnadu State, (vehicle number TN 25 W 4079) was hit by another vehicle (vehicle number AP 20 TB 5241) driven by its driver Sri.Venkateshwarlu while he was crossing main road of chipper house area (opposite feeder conveyor C2). He died on the way to Government Hospital, Bhadrachalam. The cause of fatal accident was:
a. No proper supervision,
b. Not maintaining public address system on the
chipper house area,
c. Failure to maintain token system in the raw material
packing yard for lorries and trucks.
9. Both the aforesaid learned Senior Counsel would submit that there are proper precautionary measures in place and instructions were issued, but the deceased has not followed the same. They would further submit that the contents of chargesheet lacks offences alleged against the petitioners 7 herein. With the said submissions, they sought to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.95 of 2015.
10. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein in both the complaints are serious in nature and they are triable issues. The defences taken by the petitioners herein cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The offences are continuing offences. The complaints are well within the limitation. The petitioners have to prove their innocence and the above said defences have to be taken before trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same, instead of doing so, they have filed the present petitions seeking quash of the above said complaints. With the above said submissions, he sought to dismiss both the Criminal Petitions.
11. In view of the above said facts, as stated supra, the allegations against the petitioners herein in S.T.C.No.93 of 2015 as the factory failed to construct and maintain a checkered plate 8 platform of tail end pulley of fuel belt conveyor No.2 of biomass plant in a safe manner etc., and the accident had occurred on 21-01-2014. The Show cause notice, apart from Inspection Order dated 15-12-2012 was issued to the petitioners herein.
12. Section 106 of the Factories Act deals with limitations for prosecution. As per the said provision, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
13. In the explanation, it is also mentioned that in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues; where for the performance of any act 9 time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.
14. In the present case, Inspection was conducted on 22-01-2014 and the accident was occurred on 21-01-2014. According to the complaint i.e., Inspector of Factories, the offence against the petitioners herein is that they failed to construct and maintain a checkered plate platform of tail end pulley of fuel belt conveyor No.2 of biomass plant in a safe manner by providing adequate support under the checkered plate and complete welding, and allowed a contract worker to clean fuel dust on checkered plate platform near tail and pulley of fuel belt conveyor No.2 at a height of 7 meters from the ground which was a potential source of risk of bodily injury; The said non-compliance is a continuing offence. Therefore, though the Inspection was conducted on 22-01-2014 and the 10 accident occurred on 21-01-2014, the complaint was filed on 12- 09-2014, the same is within time.
15. According to the Inspector of Factories, the offence is continuing offence. However, it is a triable issue and the petitioners have to prove their innocence during the course of trial. The defences cannot be considered a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. It is also relevant to note that the Inspection Order was also placed and the Show cause notice was also issued to the petitioners herein. It is also relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by one Asu Singa Raju, on the file of P.S.Burgampad and a crime was registered as a Cr.No.225 of 2012 against the Makka Venakateshwarlu, the driver of the vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.
17. In an offence under Factories Act, there is a specific procedure laid down in the Factories Act, 1948 for the accidents occurred in the factories. Therefore, an FIR registered under 11 Indian Penal Code, is not maintainable. This principle was laid down by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions. Therefore, the registration of said crime has no bearing on the proceedings in S.T.C.No.93 of 2015.
18. Both the learned Senior Counsel referring to Letter dated 26-12-2012 would submit that factory has taken necessary steps of to expedite settlement of insurance claim under the thirty party insurance cover to truck that caused the accident. The transporter has paid additional sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as exgratia to the family of the deceased driver.
19. Payment of compensation by the transporter is different and is not related to criminal proceedings. On the said aspect, the present proceedings cannot be quashed. Primafacie, the offences alleged against the petitioners herein are specific. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the present complaint is barred by limitation and the proceedings cannot be continued against the petitioners etc., are triable issues and this 12 Court cannot consider the same in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
20. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs., The State of Uttar Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the earlier Judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
21. The view of the said discussion, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.J.Irani Vs. State of Jharkand2, in Shailendra K.Jain and another Vs. State of Karnataka3, in Shiv Singh Mehta and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh4, in H.K.Kala and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh5, the petitioners failed to make out any case to 1 . AIR 2021 SC 931 2 2014 (1) SSC 813 3 2020 LLR 737 4 2016 LLR 934 5 2008 LLR 1039 13 quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.93 of 2015. Therefore, this Criminal Petition No.5103 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed.
22. Coming to the Criminal Petition No.5083 of 2019, as discussed supra, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are that the petitioners failed to restrict the movement of person at raw material feeding conveyors in chipped house area and failed to prove proper supervision over the movement of vehicles came for unloading raw materials (subabullah wood and eucalyptus wood) at the conveyors C1, C2 and C3 is potential source risk of bodily injury. It is a continuing offence. Due to the violation or contravention, the accident occurred on 05-12-2012.
23. The present complaint was filed on 12-09-2014 where according to the Inspector of Factories, Khammam the said offence is continuing offence and according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners it is not a continuing offence. Thus there are triable issues, whether the factory has proper supervision and maintaining public address system on the 14 chipper house area, are triable issues. This Court cannot consider the same in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioners have to prove their innocence during the course of trial.
24. In view of the above discussion, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.J.Irani's case cited supra, has no application to the present case, the petitioners failed to make out any case to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.95 of 2015. Therefore, this Criminal Petition No.5083 of 2019 is liable to be dismissed.
25. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 07-06-2022 KHRM 15 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5103 & 5083 OF 2019 07-06-2022 KHRM