Gujarat High Court
Abhay Maheshwari vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2021
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/18503/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18503 of 2021
==========================================================
ABHAY MAHESHWARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRISHAL H PATEL(9644) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAURIN A MEHTA(470) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 20/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.A.Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant seeks quashing of Criminal Case No.39/2020 filed by respondent No.2 for violation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Rules, 1963 made thereunder.
3. A bare perusal of the complaint would show that respondent No.2 Factory Inspector had visited the place of the applicant for inspection and thereafter, issued a notice stating therein that, the premises that was inspected was a factory as defined under the Factories Act and therefore, without obtaining requisite license as provided under the Factories Act, the applicant started their manufacturing process i.e. activities of different products being segregated, labeling and repackaging of the items using electrical energy. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Labour Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 22 02:40:34 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/18503/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2021 Court, Ahmedabad, took the cognizance and issued summons in terms of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Joshi would submit that, the premises in question does not fall under the ambit of Factories Act, 1948 and therefore, the complaint is ex facie without jurisdiction and learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint, as the premises is simply a facility used as a warehouse, wherein, pre-packaged commodities of third party manufacturers or sellers are stored and transported for delivery to end users and therefore, the activities cannot be terms as manufacturing process as provided under Section 2(k) of Factories Act. He would further submit that, the complaint is barred by limitation as Section 106 of the Act provides that no court can take cognizance of any offence after three months from the date when the factory inspector had knowledge of the offence. Thus, despite the reply given by the applicant to the notice issued by respondent No.2 clarifying the position of the settled law and factual aspect, the authority respondent No.2 herein with an oblique motive filed a complaint which is nothing, but misuse of process of law.
5. Having considered the facts of the complaint and material placed on record, the issue raised in this petition requires consideration. Hence, Notice, returnable on 18.11.2021. Learned APP waives service of the Notice. Meanwhile and till the returnable date, ad-interim relief in terms of para 9 (b) is granted.
Direct service is permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) SUCHIT Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 22 02:40:34 IST 2021