Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Arjun Dass Chawla on 6 May, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 907-SBA of 2002 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 907-SBA of 2002
Date of Decision: 6.5.2010
State of Haryana
...Appellant
Versus
Arjun Dass Chawla
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Shakti Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana, for the appellant.
Mr. Vivek Bashamboo, Advocate
for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal of the accused/respondent dated 25.9.2000 in a complaint filed under Section 94 of the Punjab Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to the "1948 Act").
The Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Rohtak, had filed a complaint under Section 94 of the 1948 Act dated 14.7.1995 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, against Arjun Dass Chawla, Occupier and Manager of M/s Krishna Fire Works, Gohana Road, Rohtak. The accused/respondent had employed 50 workers and was carrying on manufacturing of crackers with the aid of 3 H.P. Electric load. It was stated that the accused had not obtained prior Criminal Appeal No. 907-SBA of 2002 2 approval of the factory site building and also not obtained stability certificate from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Haryana, as required under Section 6 of the Factories Act read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Punjab Factories Rules, 1952. This violation is punishable under Section 94 of the 1948 Act. The 1948 Act provides minimum fine of Rs.10,000/-.
On the complaint, a notice was served which stated that the accused was already convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak on 8.4.1995 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
To prove the charge against the accused/respondent, the complainant examined the following witnesses:-
"1. PW.1 N.S. Khatri, Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Panipat;
2. PW.2 S.M.Madan, Deputy Director, Haryana, Chandigarh; and
3. PW.3 R.K. Kalrea, Ex. Chief Inspector, Factories, Haryana, Chandigarh.
A fire incident had taken place in the factory of accused/respondent. The judgment of trial Court states that for the fire incident, a separate case was registered which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Complainant N.S. Khatri, Assistant Director, Industries Safety and Health, Panipat, after his examination-in-chief was recorded, never turned up for cross- examination. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, recorded acquittal of the accused by observing as under:- Criminal Appeal No. 907-SBA of 2002 3
"...Here in the present case, the complainant has come with a plea that the accused was found running the factory by employing about 50 workers and carrying out the business of manufacturing of crackers with the aid of 3 H.P. electric load, without the prior approval of the factory site and building and the stability certificate was not obtained by the accused from the Chief Inspector of Factories. The complainant has not placed on record, the list of workers, who have been alleged to be working in the factory of accused. The excuse taken by the witnesses that the entire record of the factory had been destroyed due to fire incident, is not satisfactory explanation. The complainant could have produced the record from the office to prove that the accused had employed about 50 workers. Regarding the fact that the accused had not got approved the site and the building, record from the office of complainant could have been brought on record, but no such documents have been placed on record by the complainant. Even otherwise also, the complainant has failed to supply the names and particulars of the workers found working in the factory of accused. The complainant has relied upon the statement of Smt. Gianwati that she had told them that about 50/60 workers were working in Criminal Appeal No. 907-SBA of 2002 4 the factory but the complainant has not examined said Smt. Gianwati to depose in the witness box.
11. Moreover, it is alleged that the business of manufacturing of crackers was carried out with the aid of 3 H.P. electric load, but the complainant has not produced any record from the electricity department to prove that any such load was consumed by the accused. The oral testimony of witnesses examined by the complainant are not sufficient to warrant the conviction of accused. The complainant has miserably failed to prove that there was violation of the Factory Act or the rules made thereunder. It is admitted by the witnesses that no site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and even it has been admitted that the report prepared by them was not prepared at the spot, therefore, in the absence of site plan, list of workers and the other cogent and documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the accused has violated the provisions of Factory Act and the rules made thereunder and hence, the accused is hereby acquitted from the charge framed against him. File be consigned to record room".
Mr. Shakti Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the appellant, has not been able to show any piece of evidence from which the findings, recorded by the Court of Criminal Appeal No. 907-SBA of 2002 5 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, could be dislodged. The fact that 50/60 workers were employed was divulged by Gianwati, who was not examined. Therefore, the same being hear-say evidence is inadmissible.
I find no infirmity, patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 6, 2010 "DK"