Delhi District Court
Factory Inspector vs . Satish Bansal on 20 August, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI.
Factory Inspector Vs. Satish Bansal
U/s 102, 56, 88, 63 of Delhi Factories Rules,
1950 r/w Section 112, 9(d), 31, 83, 45 & 92 of
Factories Act 1948
JUDGMENT
SL. No. of the case : 02402R0337632008 Date of commission of offence : 07.02.2008 Name of the complainant : Sh. J.N. Jain Inspector Factories Name of the accused & his : Satish Bansal - Occupier parentage & residence. M/s Vinyl Products 9/51 Kirti Nagar Industrial Area Delhi - 110 015 : Kishanchand Aggarwal - Manager M/s Vinyl Products 9/51 Kirti Nagar Industrial Area Delhi - 110 015 Offence complained or proved : U/s 102, 56, 88, 63 of Delhi Factories Rules 1950 r/w Section 112, 9(d), 31, 83, 45 & 92 of Factories Act 1948 Plea of accused : Pleaded guilty Final Order : Convicted 2 Date of such order : 20.08.2008 A brief statement of the reasons of the decision.
Briefly sated the facts of case are that on 07.2.08 Sh J.N. Jain, Inspector Factories while inspecting M/s Vinyl Products found certain deficiencies and asked for the registers. Accused did not produce the documents for inspection which he was asked to produce i.e. Record of Lime washing and painting in form no. 7, Leave with wages register in form no. 15, Muster roll in form no. 26, Accident Register in form no. 27, inspection book etc. It was also found that accused did not have any trained first aid person holding a valid certificate recognised by the State Government. Complaint was filed under Section 102, 56, 88, 63 of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 r/w Section 112, 9(d), 31, 83, 45 & 92 of Factories Act 1948. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused were summoned.
On their appearance after supplying copies of chargesheet and hearing arguments, prima facie case was made out against both the accused. Accordingly notice for offence punishable U/s 102, 56, 88, 63 of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 r/w Section 112, 9(d), 31, 83, 45 & 92 of Factories Act 1948 was served upon accused. Accused pleaded guilty voluntarily and stated that they have complied with the deficiencies pointed out by the inspector factories during inspection.
3Before recording their plea of guilt they were explained of the consequences of pleading guilty but they persisted in their guilty. In view of the voluntary admission of guilt by the accused I convict both the accused for offence punishable under Section U/s 102, 56, 88, 63 of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 r/w Section 112, 9(d), 31, 83, 45 & 92 of Factories Act 1948.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.08.2008 (SANJIV JAIN)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts : Shahdara 4 IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI.
Factory Inspector Vs. Satish Bansal U/s 102, 56, 88, 63 of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 r/w Section 112, 9(d), 31, 83, 45 & 92 of Factories Act 1948 ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide separate judgment accused Satish Bansal and Kishan Chand Aggarwal have been convicted of offence punishable U/s 102, 56, 88, 63 of Delhi Factories Rules, 1950 r/w Section 112, 9(d), 31, 83, 45 & 92 of Factories Act 1948.
I have heard the accused on point of sentence. Accused state that they have complied with the deficiencies pointed out by the inspector factories during inspection.
Considering their age antecedents facts and circumstances of the case I sentence the accused to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default one month simple imprisonment. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.08.2008 (SANJIV JAIN)
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma Courts : Shahdara