Patna High Court
Mehmood Ali vs State Of Bihar And Anr. [Alongwith ... on 16 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)ILLJ1086PAT
Author: Aftab Alam
Bench: Aftab Alam
ORDER Aftab Alam, J.
Page 1133
1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. representing the State.
2. The two petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 26.04.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Trial No. 394 of 2003 (G.C.-4 of 2003) by which on a complaint filed by the Factory Inspector, Chapra Circle, Chapra, he took cognizance of offences under Sections 7A(3) of the Factories Act and Rule 65(3) of the Bihar Factory Rules and summoned the two petitioners for facing trial.
3. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 34827 of 2003 is the Deputy Managing Director of M/s Sasa Musa Sugar Works Ltd. and the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 35971 of 2003 is the General Manager of the company. The company has a sugar factory at Sasa Musa in the district of Gopalganj. The factory is engaged in the manufacture and production of sugar and it runs for 3-4 months (the sugar season) in one calender year.
4. The Factory was inspected by the Factory Inspector on 22.11.2002. The Inspector apparently found certain irregularities and shortcomings in the running of the factory and enumerated them in the inspection note, dated 22.11.2002. On the basis of the inspection, he filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj on 11.2.2003, incorporating the inspection note and a number of other documents. On the basis of the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and summoned the two petitioners for facing their trial as stated above.
5. Before proceeding further in the matter, it will be appropriate to take a look at the relevant provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules so as to get a clear idea of the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners.
Page 1134
6. Section 7A of the Factories Act has the marginal title, 'General duties of the occupier' and Section 7A(3) is as follows:
Except in such cases as may be prescribed, every occupier shall prepare, and, as often as may be appropriate, revise, a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety of the workers at work and the organisation and arrangements for the time being in force for carrying out that policy, and to bring the statement and any revision thereof to the notice of all the worker's in such manner as may be prescribed.
7. Rule 63(3) of the Bihar Factories Rules is as follows:
65(3) In every factory to which these rules apply an ambulance van shall be provided and maintained in a perfect working condition and shall always be made available during working hours of the factory for the purposes of removing serious cases of accidents or sickness;
Provided that where arrangements have been made for obtaining such ambulance van from any neighbouring hospital and the Chief Inspector is satisfied that the ambulance van will always be available for removing cases of accidents or sickness, he may, by an order in writing and subject to such conditions as he may specify, exempt the factory from maintaining such a van:
Provided further that the Chief Inspector, if he is satisfied that on account of the proximity of a Hospital or Dispensary, the financial position of the Factory, the employment or frequency of accidents or any other reasonable case, it is not necessary or practicable to provide an ambulance van in any factory, and if he is satisfied that alternative arrangements for quick transfer of any injured person to the nearest Hospital or Dispensary are available during all working hours of the factory, may, by an order in writing, relax the sub-rule in respect of that factory to such extent, subject to such conditions and for such period as may be specified in the said order.
8. The Factory Inspector found that there was no written statement of the general policy with respect to the health and safety of the workers and in that regard observed in the inspection note (paragraph 6) as follows:
6. Health & Safety Policy- During course of inspection, it came to the knowledge of undersigned that a written statement of general policy with respect to the health & safety of the workers at work is not being prepared by the Occupier, It is the violation of Section 7-A(3). It is advised that such policy should be prepared and a copy of that should be sent to the undersigned's office.
9. With regard to the maintenance of an ambulance van at all times, the inspection note (vide paragraph 4) observed as follows:
4. Ambulance Van- During course of inspection it is found that there is no Ambulance Van in the factory. During course of enquiry it came to the knowledge of undersigned that although a vehicle always kept in the factory for shifting of patient if any casualty occurs in the factory. It is the violation of Rule 65(3) of the Bihar Factories Rule, 1950. It is advised that kindly do the provision as mentioned in the aforesaid rule.
10. He then filed the complaint against the two petitioners describing them as Occupiers of the factory.
Page 1135
11. Mr. Giri submitted that though there was no written statement of general policy with respect to the health & safety of the workers at the time of inspection, as advised by the Factory Inspector the petitioners wrote to him vide letter dated 8.1.2003 seeking his guidance in framing the policy in question. The petitioners got no help from the Factory Inspector and did not receive any response from him till the filing of the complaint more than a month later on 11.02.2003.
12. With regard to the maintenance of an Ambulance Van at all times, he submitted that it was noticed by the Factory Inspector that though there was no Ambulance Van, there was another vehicle in its place for carrying patients for medical aid in case of any eventuality. Mr. Giri submitted that immediately after inspection, the petitioners had made an application vide letter, dated 10.1.2003 for grant of exemption in terms of the proviso to the Rule. The request for exemption also remained unattended till the filing of the complaint. Mr. Giri submitted that in case of maintenance of an Ambulance Van at all times, the violation of the Rule, if any, was only of a technical nature since another vehicle in its place was found available by the Factory Inspector and the lapse, if any, was not to formally apply for exemption under the proviso to the Rule. That omission was also corrected as a request for exemption was made immediately after the inspection though it remained unattended by the Factory Inspector. As regards the absence of a written statement of general policy with respect to the health & safety of the workers, Mr. Giri submitted that the omission was wholly unintended and as soon as the shortcoming was brought to their notice, the petitioners sought the help of the Factory Inspector himself in framing such a policy. Though they did not get any help from the Factory Inspector, the petitioners got an Occupational Health and Safety Policy duly framed as would be evident from Annexure-4.
13. Mr. Giri further submitted that the irregularities for which the petitioners are being criminally proceeded against are of such a trivial and minor nature that the same Factory Inspector renewed the licence of the factory for the subsequent years without any objection or difficulty. He invited my attention to Annexure-3 that is the licence of the factory for the year 2003 granted by the Inspector of Factories, Chapra circle, Chapra. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Counsel submitted that the continuance of the criminal trial would be simply a harassment to the petitioners and an abuse of the process of law.
14. On hearing counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is too trivial to be allow to proceed any further. Flooded with such small matters, the Subordinate Criminal Courts are not being able to give proper attention and time to more serious cases. I am, therefore, satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by allowing this criminal proceedings to continue. The impugned order taking cognizance and any proceedings arising therefrom are accordingly quashed.
15. These two quashing petitions are allowed.