Karnataka High Court
Sri K L Srinivas Murthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.4921 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.4943 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. K.L. Srinivas Murthy,
Age: 46 years,
Occupier of
M/s. Ram Rasayanic Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.35, KIADB Industrial Area,
Chikkaballapura Tq
and District-562 101. ...Petitioner
(Common)
(By Sri. Nagesh S, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By the Senior Assistant Director
of Factories,
(An inspector appointed under
Section 8(1) of Factories Act 1948)
Bengaluru Division-13,
Karmikara Bhavana,
2nd Floor, Dairy Circle,
Bannerugatta Road,
Bengaluru-560029.
WP No.4921/2015 c/w
WP No.4943/2015
2
2. The Director of Factories and Boilers,
Karmikara Bhavana, 2nd Floor,
Dairy Circle, Bannerugatta Road,
Bengaluru-560029. ...Respondents
(Common)
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
Writ Petition No.4921/2015 is filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.259/2011
renumbered as C.C.No.237/2012 on the file of the 1st Addl.
Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikkaballapura at Annexure-G and also
quash the Sanction order dated:14.09.2011 passed by the
R-2 at Annexure-F to the writ petition.
Writ Petition No.4943/2015 is filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.258/2011
renumbered as C.C.No.236/2012 on the file of the 1st Addl.
Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikkaballapura at Annexure-G and also
quash the Sanction order dated:14.09.2011 passed by the
R-2 at Annexure-F to the writ petition.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
group, this day, the Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER
In these writ petitions, the petitioner who is the very same person, has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.237/2012 and C.C.No.236/2012 WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 3 respectively said to be pending on the file of the learned First Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkaballapura.
2. The said criminal cases bearing Nos.236/2012 and 237/2012 have arisen out of two complaints filed against the present petitioner by the Assistant Director of Factories, Bengaluru Division-13, Bengaluru in the Court below under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking prosecution of the present petitioner, who is said to be the occupier of one M/s. Ram Rasayanic Pvt. Ltd. According to the complainant, there was an incident in the premises of the above said factory of the petitioner on 02.07.2011 at about 3.00 a.m. The said information was said to have been received by the complainant through electronic media on the same day at around 11.00 a.m. In the said incident a worker employed in the said factory said to have died due to inhalation of poisonous gas. The complainant is WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 4 said to have visited the said factory on the very same day i.e., on 02.07.2011 and thereafter on 05.07.2011, conducted enquiry and investigation and by virtue of the said enquiry and investigation, he came to know that the present petitioner as the occupier of the said factory has violated many of the provisions of the Factories Act and Factories Rules, as such, two separate cases were filed against him after obtaining approval of prosecution proposal by the Director of Factories.
C.C.No.236/2012 (Old No.258/2011) was filed alleging contravention of Rules 84, 88-Q(1), 88-M(1)(a) and 88-L of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 read with Sections 7(A)(2)(C), Section 41 of the Factories Act, 1948. C.C.No.237/2012 (Old No.259/2011) was instituted for alleged contravention of Rules 3(1), 4(1), 112, 137(1) of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969 read WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 5 with Sections 6, 41-B(2) and Sections 41-B(4) of the Factories Act, 1948.
3. The first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant in both the cases who is the Assistant Director of Factories is not an Inspector under Section 8 of the Factories Act, as such, he has no power under Section 9 of the Factories Act to file the present complaint.
4. It is the contention of the respondent in his statement of objection as well the argument of learned High Court Government Pleader that the previous designation of the Senior Inspectors have been re-designated. Accordingly, by virtue of the Government Notification, the Inspector has been re-designated as the Assistant Director of Factories. Therefore, he is empowered under Section 9 of the Factories Act to WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 6 institute a complaint. The said contention of the respondent has not been denied or disputed from the petitioner's side in the reply argument, as such, the first contention of the petitioner that the complainant has no power to institute the complaint is not acceptable.
5. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no sanction to prosecute the occupier of the factory is required under the Factories Act, as such, the alleged sanction said to have been obtained by the complainant from the Director of Factories is bad in the eye of law, as such, the entire criminal cases pending in the Court below deserves to be quashed.
6. In his support, he relies upon the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.09.2014 passed in Sri. Satish & Another Vs. State of Karnataka WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 7 in W.P.Nos.44560/2014 and 45981/2014. In the said order, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to an order dated 08.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.13928/2014 in the case of I. Cherian Vs. State of Karnataka, allowed the writ petition by quashing the criminal case said to be pending in the Court of VII Additional C.M.M. at Bengaluru in C.C.No.18203/2013. While arriving at such conclusion, the Court made the following extraction, which is extracted herein below:
"4. In the aforesaid case, it has been held thus:
"On 03.04.2014, the following order was passed:
"In view of Section 9(i) of the Factories Act, 1948, the prescription of power of the Inspector under Rule 14(c) of the Karnataka Factory Rules, 1969 empowers the Inspector to prosecute and conduct or defend before a Court any complaint or any other proceeding arising under the Evidence Act or in the discharge of WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 8 duties of an Inspector. Therefore, it is not known as to how the Director of Factories and Boilers issued the order dt.7.9.2012 Annexure-D directing prosecution for offences under the Factories Act?
Learned Govt. counsel to take instructions and have his say on 8.4.2012."
2. Today, learned Government Advocate submits that in terms of the Government Order dated 07th August 2013, a Senior Inspector Factories was re-designated as Senior Assistant Director of Factories.
3. Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the Director of Factories and Boilers who passed the order, Annexure-D on 07.04.2012 directing prosecution for offences under the Factories Act, 1948, had no competence. If that is so, petition deserves to be allowed."
The above referred order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court since does not specifically deal with the WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 9 necessity of obtaining sanction by any competent authority or consequences of obtaining a sanction though it was not required to be obtained, the said order would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. It is also because, even according to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no necessity for the complainant to obtain any sanction before the institution of criminal case against the petitioner.
6. Even according to learned High Court Government Pleader, the sanction given by respondent No.2 is only an administrative order, which is in accordance with the Government Notification and is in no way connected with the complaint filed by the Assistant Director of factories as complainant. Thus, the alleged sanction or permission or approval of prosecution by the Director of Factories is only an internal departmental procedural modality said to have WP No.4921/2015 c/w WP No.4943/2015 10 been followed by them. Thus, it is neither violation nor non-compliance of a statutory requirement. Therefore, even according to the petitioner, when no such sanction was required to be obtained by the complainant for filing the prosecution, the obtaining of alleged approval for the proposal to prosecute the petitioner by the complainant would in no way prejudice the interest of the petitioner, as such, the second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is also not acceptable.
Barring the above, the petitioner has not put forward any other grounds worth to be considered, as such, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMC