Delhi District Court
State vs . on 7 June, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIVEK KUMAR GULIA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)
SAKET DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
State
(represented by Factory Inspector)
vs.
Satish Rakyan
CC No. 01/3/06
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of case : 02403R0151502006
2. Date of institution : 03.01.2006
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. J.N. Jain, Factory Inspector
4. Date of commission of offence : 03.10.2005
5. Name of accused : Satish Rakyan, occupier &
Manager of M/s Interweave
Fashion Pvt. Ltd., S/o Sh. N.C.
Rakyan R/o Flat no. 902, Royal
Retreat Apartment, Charm
Wood Village, Suraj Kund,
Faridabad.
6. Offence complained of : U/s. 88, 88A, 38, 45, 9(d) of The
Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rules 96,
102, 61 & 63 of The Factories
Rules, 1950 and punishable u/s
92 of The Factories Act, 1948.
Page 1 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006
2
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment : 21.05.2014
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of such judgment : 07.06.2014
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1. The relevant facts of the case are as under. On account of incident of fire and explosion, which took place in factory M/s Interweave Fashion Pvt. Ltd. on 23.09.2005 at 4.30 PM resulting into death of two workers, the said factory was inspected by Factory Inspector Mr. J.N. Jain (PW1) alongwith other officers to investigate the fatal accident. Further, it was found that intimation followed by notice of dangerous occurrence of the above fatal accident in Form no. 18 and 18A respectively were not sent to the Inspector/Chief Inspector of Factories within 12 hours amounting to contravention of provisions of Rule 96 of Delhi Factory Rule, 1950 (in short 'the Rules') read with section 88 and 88A of The Factories Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act'). Further, records i.e (a) Accident Register in Form no. 27 (b) Muster Roll in Form no. 26 (c) Adult Worker Register in Form no. 12 (d) Leave with Page 2 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 3 wages register in Form no. 15 (e) Inspection Book (f) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of Flammable Material (MTO) were not produced on demand. Further, no secondary fire emergency exit was found in the room where fire incident took place and also from first floor and second floor to ground floor of the building for escape of workers in case of emergency and this amounted to contravention of section 38 of the Act r/w Rule 61 of the Rules. Further, it was observed that no first aid trained person was present during the inspection in contravention of the provisions of section 45 of the Act r/w Rule 63 of the Rules. It was further submitted that reply submitted by management was not found satisfactory and notice sent by office of Chief Inspector of the factories was not complied with. Thereafter on a complaint given in writing by Factory Inspector, cognizance of the alleged offences against occupier/Manager Satish Rakyan was taken and he was summoned to face trial.
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
2. After compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C was given to accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Page 3 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 4
3. Complainant side produced one witness to prove its case.
Complainant, Inspector J.N. Jain (CW1), testified that on 03.10.2005 at 3.45 PM he alongwith Mr. P.K. Goswami, Inspector of Factories and Sh. K.L.Meena, Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories, inspected the factory M/s Interweave Fashion Pvt. Ltd, to investigate the fatal accident of two workers who died on the spot on 23.09.2005. Further, he mentioned that inspection form Ex.PW1/A was filled inside the factory at the time of inspection and list of workers present inside the factory Ex.PW1/B was prepared on a separate sheet and signatures of workers was obtained on the sheet. It is further deposed that the intimation and notice of dangerous occurrence i.e fire and explosion was not sent in form no. 18 & 18A to the inspector/Chief Inspector of factories within stipulated time and the requisite records of workers working in the factory i.e muster role in form no. 26, Adult worker register in form no. 12, Leave with wages register in form no. 15, accident register in form no. 27, material safety data sheet of mineral turpentine oil (MTO) and inspection book were not produced on demand at the time of inspection. Further, he testified that the factory was not provided with secondary/emergency exit from ground floor to first floor and second floor and no trained person in first aid with valid certificate was present Page 4 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 5 in the factory at the time of inspection. It is further deposed that notice dated 31.10.2005 Ex.CW1/C was issued from the office of Chief Inspector of Factories but its reply was found unsatisfactory and since no compliance of notice Ex.PW1/C was done, present complaint case was filed.
4. All the incriminating evidence and documents were put to accused during his statement u/s. 281 Cr.P.C. Accused explained that the factory was locked by the police immediately after the incident of fire and Factory Inspector had visited only after its reopening. Further, he mentioned that the office of Factory Inspector was duly intimated about fire on the same day i.e 23.09.2005 and on the next day, they were intimated through letter. It was also mentioned that a secondary exit was provided in the room where fire incident took place and also from first floor and second floor to ground floor. It is also mentioned that all the records maintained in the factory was handed over to Factory Inspector and all safety measures were in place at the time of incident. Further, he stated that reply to the notice given by Factory Inspector was duly sent.
Page 5 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 6
5. The defence side also examined three witnesses.
5.1. DW1, accused, himself stepped into the witness box and testified that on the date of incident he was present in the factory and after incident, the information was sent to police, fire brigade and office of factory Inspector through telephone. Further, on the date of incident, the equipments for first aid and personnel duly deputed for first aid purposes were present. Further, it was mentioned that fire fighting equipments were also placed on each floor of the factory building and turpentine oil and other inflammable material which were used for washing purposes were kept in sealed conditions outside room where the incident of fire had occurred. Further, he testified that the factory was sealed by the police on the same day and it remained sealed for nearly three days. He further mentioned that he sent written intimation to the office of Chief Inspector of Factories vide letter Ex.PW1/DX and further he replied the letter received from the office of Chief Inspector of Factories vide letter dated 14.11.2005 Ex.PW1/DY. 5.2. DW2, Sh. Nawal Kishore, testified that he is employed as Assistant Production Manager in the said factory and he was present in the factory on the date of incident. Further, he deposed on the lines of DW1.
Page 6 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 7 5.3. DW3, Inspector K.S. Rawat, testified that on 23.09.2005 he was posted in P.S. Okhla Industrial Area and on that day, on receipt of DD no. 16A at about 4.55 PM, he alongwith other police officials visited the place of incident. Further, he mentioned that a case FIR No. 836/2005 u/s 285/304A/34 IPC was registered and it was investigated by him. Further, he mentioned that factory was sealed by police after the incident of fire and it was reopened after about 23 days. He also mentioned that Fire Fighting Equipments were there and same were seized.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
6. I have heard Shri Manoj Singh, Ld. counsel for accused. No one appeared and addressed arguments on behalf of complainant. Record is also gone through.
7. The prosecution side has alleged the violation of Rule 96 of the Rules and sections 88 & 88A of the Act on the ground that no intimation followed by notice of dangerous occurrence of fatal accident in Form No. 18 and 18A was sent to the office of Inspector/Chief Inspector of Factories. As per Rule 96(3), the Manager of the factories is Page 7 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 8 required to confirm the notice, which has to be sent to different authorities including Chief Inspector of Factories through telephone, special messenger or telegram immediately after the accident causing death as per Rule 96(1), within 12 hours of the accident by sending the written report in form no. 18. Though the accused has claimed that he intimated all the concerned authorities telephonically about the accident immediately after its occurrence but it is admitted position that the said statutory written report was not sent within 12 hours of the incident. On this issue, accused has explained that since the factory was sealed immediately after the incident, notice could not sent within the aforesaid stipulated period. It is observed that in his statement u/s 281 Cr.P.C., accused has stated that notice was sent to the office of Chief Inspector on the next day after the incident whereas while deposing as DW1 he stated that it was sent on 28.09.2005 (Ex.PW1/DX). Thus, it is clear that notice was not sent within the stipulated period and moreover no plausible explanation has been given by accused as to why it could not be sent to the office of Chief Inspector even after the factory was sealed. In view of this, violation of Rule 96 r/w section 88 & 88A has been established on record.
Page 8 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 9
8. Another charge is in respect of contravention of section 9(d) r/w Rule 102 for not showing on demand the records i.e (a) Accident Register in Form no. 27 (b) Muster Roll in Form no. 26 (c) Adult Worker Register in Form no. 12 (d) Leave with wages register in Form no. 15 (e) Inspection Book (f) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of Flammable Material (MTO). CW1 has deposed categorically on this aspect and his testimony could not be rebutted during his cross examination. Though, accused has stated in his statement u/s 281 Cr.P.C that all the records available in the factory were handed over to Factory Inspector but it is noteworthy that he (DW1) has not deposed to this effect. Moreover, the accused did not opt to produce the said record pertaining to relevant period so as to corroborate his plea. In view of this, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of CW1 qua contravention of section 9(d) r/w Rule 102.
9. Further, the accused has been charged for contravention of section 38 r/w Rule 61 of for not providing secondary fire exit in the room where fire took place and also on first and second floor. CW1 deposed in this regard that the fire explosion took place in a room at second floor and no emergency exist was found from the ground floor to Page 9 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 10 1st floor or to 2nd floor for the escape of the workers/employees during emergency. Further, it is important to note that CW1 had replied during cross examination that there was only one door in the room where fire took place. Though, the accused has stated in his statement u/s 281 Cr.P.C that secondary exit was provided but there is no material on record to corroborate this statement. Accused could have placed on record the photographs of the factory or the room where the alleged incident took place in support of his defence but that has not been done. In view of this, it held that complainant has been able to prove the contravention of provisions of Section 38 r/w Rule 61.
10. Lastly, it has been alleged by complainant that no first aid trained person was present during inspection amounting to contravention of provision of Section 45 r/w Rule 63. CW1 has deposed in this regard in clear terms and his testimony could not be impeached during cross examination. CW1 replied during cross examination that first aid provisions/box was present in the factory, however, no trained person was present. On the other hand, though, DW1 and DW2 have also deposed that all the equipments for first aid and personnel deputed for first aid were present but it is noteworthy that even the details of said Page 10 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006 11 person have not been placed on record. In order to demolish the case of complainant, accused was required to discharge the burden of furnishing the record of the person deputed for providing first aid in case of accident but since this has not been done, this plea of accused is found to be baseless and thus cannot be accepted. Thus, the complainant has been able to prove the charge u/s 45 r/w Rule 63. CONCLUSION :
13. For the aforesaid reasons, it is held that complainant has been able to prove its case against accused. Accordingly, accused is ordered to be convicted for the offences defined u/s 88, 88A, 38, 45, 9(d) of The Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 96, 61, 63 & 102 of The Factories Rule, 1950, all punishable u/s 92 of The Factories Act, 1948.
Announced in the open court (Vivek Kumar Gulia)
th
on the 07 Day of June, 2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
(total 11 pages) South, Saket Courts/New Delhi
Page 11 of 11 FI vs. Satish Rakyan; CC No. 01/3/2006