Karnataka High Court
Dr. Vinod Nowal vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 February, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRL.P NO 101351 OF 2016
BETWEEN
1 . DR. VINOD NOWAL
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: OCCUPIER,
M/S. JSW STEELS LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR,
TORANAGALLU,
DIST: BALLARI.
2 . SRI.P.SASINDRAN,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: MANAGER,
M/S. JSW STEELS LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR,
TORANAGALLU,
DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT, ADV.,)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHRWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
2 . SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES,
BELLARY DIVISION,BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1-R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE
NO. 297 OF 2013 ON THE FILE THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM COURT, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 92 OF THE FACTORIES ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.297 of 2013 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bellary registered for the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act ('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
Petitioners 1 and 2 are working as Occupier and Manager respectively of M/s JSW Steels Limited ('the Factory' for short). Productivity of the factory is rooted through hired contractors for its works in various departments. On 11-09- 3 2013 an unknown decomposed dead body was found in R.M.H.S. conveyor belt which is a part of the production unit of the petitioners. On the decomposed body being struck in the belt the machine stopped working. Immediately on receiving the information that the belt was struck due to decomposed body, the petitioners rushed to the spot and got removed the body and cleaned the area. Bad smell was emanating from the body getting jammed into the machine is what is contended. Immediately the information was given to the higher ups, the safety department officer and also informed the 2nd respondent/Deputy Director of Factories by furnishing Form No.17 which contained the format of informing the incident.
4. On the aforesaid information the 2nd respondent visited the factory premises and conducted an inspection on 12-09-2013, again on 18-09-2013 and recorded the statement of employees. The petitioners furnished all the details that were sought for and later the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice-cum-detailed investigation report 4 alleging that the petitioners have contravened Sections 83 and 41 of the Act. The petitioners immediately sent a reply to the show cause notice explaining in detail that they had assigned the work to the contractor subject to compliance with all safety and other measures but they have not followed any of the provisions of the Act. It was also informed that the jurisdictional police authorities are investigating the fact as to how the decomposed body got into the belt.
5. Notwithstanding the said reply, the 2nd respondent registered a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act on the ground that petitioners have violated Rule 83 and Section 41 of the Factories Act. Cognizance being taken for the aforesaid offences has driven the petitioners to this Court in the present petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not contravened any of the provisions of the Act. He would contend that the offences punishable as alleged would not get attracted even to the case at hand as 5 the deceased body was never the body of an employee in the Factory. He would submit that analogous proceedings were initiated on the incident under the Penal Code for offences punishable under Sections 287 and 304A of the IPC in which the accused therein-employees of R.M.H.S. Limited of the Factory have been acquitted on merits. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to justify the action of registration of the complaint on the score that petitioners have not taken safety measures due to which the death has happened and seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and are, therefore, not reiterated over again. The body that was found was not the employee of the Factory is not in dispute. The body was struck in a belt at R.M.H.S. unit of the Factory which is connected to the iron ore mining area. The body having struck resulted in a jam of the belt is also not in 6 dispute. Therefore, the violation as indicated in Rule 83 or Section 41 of the Act would not become applicable as there is no injury or death of an employee of the Factory for the 2nd respondent to contend that safety measures are not maintained in the premises which has resulted in the death of the deceased. The deceased was never an employee of the occupier is also not in dispute. That being the case, registration of criminal case against the petitioners for violation of Rule 83 and Section 41 of the Act is unfounded. Yet another factor that is germane to be noticed is acquittal of the accused who are employees of R.M.H.S. unit for offences punishable under Sections 287 and 304A of the IPC. Both these factors led to an unmistakable conclusion that the body was not that of an employee, safety measures had nothing to do with the death of the deceased and acquittal of employees of the occupier for offences punishable under Sections 304A and 297 of the IPC takes away the very essence of the offence. The proceedings under Section 92 should emanate from the fact. The fact in the case at hand is the dead-body and not death of an employee during working 7 hours in the Factory. Therefore, the fact on which the offence is said to be built up is itself flawed.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.297 of 2013 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bellary stands quashed.
SD JUDGE Vb/-