Bangalore District Court
As Pw1 And Got Marked Documents At Ex.P1 ... vs On 27.11.2007 And They Have Visited The ... on 8 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CMM, BANGALORE
Dated this the 8th day of November 2016
Present : Smt. Roopa R. Kulkarni,
B.Com., LL.B. (Spl).
IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 CR.PC.,
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC No. 3830/2008
2. The date of commission
of the offence : 26.11.2007
3. Name of the complainant : State by Sri.Ravindranath N. Rathod,
Senior Asst. Director of Factories
4. Name of the accused : A1: Smt. Usha Nanda Kumar,
The ccupier,
M/s. Balan Natural Food (P) Limited,
Singapur village, Vidyaranyapura
Post, Bengaluru.
A2: Muralidharan P.
(Split up)
5. The offences complained : U/s.92 of Factories Act 1948
or proved
6. Plea of the accused
and his examination : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquitted
8. Date of order : 08.11.2016
The complainant has filed the complaint against the accused
for the offence punishable u/s.92 of Factories Act 1948.
2 CC.NO.3830/2008
2. The complainant has filed private complaint by stating that,
the office has received notice of accident and dangerous occurrence
in Form No.17 intimating about a serious accident that occurred on
26.11.2007 at about 12.30 p.m. to a worker by name Kum.R.Roopa
in the premises of the factory and in response to the notice they
have visited the factory on 28.11.2007 at 11.00 p.m. to investigate
the matter and when they visited the Process Section seriouso
accident was occurred and the spot of the accident was
photographed by Sri. Regin S/o K.R.Govindan Kutty in the
presence of Investigating Officer and they obtained the statement of
eye witnesses by name Ganaraj S/o Govindapujari and
Kum.Poornima Devi. They obtained the photocopy of the
attendance register showing the details of injured person and from
enquiry and investigation it was revealed that, on 26.11.2007
Kum.Roopa a female worker aged about 18 years was working as
Helper attended to work at about 8.30 a.m. and the work assigned
to her for the day was to make carton boxes and she performed the
work of carton box making up to 5.00 p.m. and later on she was
assigned the work of pouring the mango pulp stored in tins into the
kettle. While pouring the mango pulp into the kettle the cap of the
tin fell into the bowl of the kettle and immediately she tried to pick
up the cap from the kettle with her right hand and while doing so,
mental bangle which she wored entangled with the bolt provided to
the stirrer which was in motion. As a result of which her right
hand was pulled by the stirrer and sustained severe injuries on her
right hand. The complaint-worker who heard the victim's cry for
help rushed to the spot and switched off the machine and after
removing the hand from the machine the injured was immediately
3 CC.NO.3830/2008
shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital for treatment. The duty doctors
after examining the said injured have advised to shift to St. John's
Medical college hospital and surgery was conducted and the right
hand below elbow was amputated and n 12.12.2007 she was
discharged from the hospital and advised to take rest. The
machine involved in the narrated accident is a fruit pulp mixing
Kettle and capacity of the kettle is 250 liters and the diameter of
the top rim of the kettle is 91 cm. Half circular blade coupled t the
shaft of the kettle provided at the center of the machine and the
machine is provided with 1 Hp motor and the kettle rotates at 16
revolutions per minute which constitute a dangerous part of the
machine. The stirrer which rotates inside the bowl of the kettle is a
dangerous part of the machine by virtue of its size, shape and
rotation and the kettle in subject was kept open on the top and no
guard or cover or lid was provided to the kettle. Further a small
opening may be provided in the said lid to feed the required
ingredient to the kettle. So, the occupier and Manager have
contravened Sec.7(A) (i) of the Factories Act, 1948 and they have
not taken necessary measures to ensure the safety of the injured
worker. So, for these reasons it is prayed to take action against the
accused for the offence punishable u/s.92 of the Factories Act.
3. After filing of the complaint, criminal case was registered
against the accused and summons were issued. After the service of
summons, accused appeared before the court and were enlarged on
bail. During the pendency of the trial the case was split up against
accused No.2 as he remained absent and he was absconding since
4 CC.NO.3830/2008
long. Plea was recorded wherein accused No.1 pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined the
complainant as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to
Ex.P.12 and closed its side of evidence.
5. 313 statement of the accused was recorded wherein she
denied the incriminating evidence deposed against her and did not
choose to lead any evidence on her behalf.
6. Heard both the sides.
7. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution who is
examined as PW1 has stated in his evidence that he received the
notice with regard to accident taken place in the factory of the
accused on 27.11.2007 and they have visited the factory on
28.11.2007 at about 11.30 a.m. and have started investigation and
they have taken photographs of the spot and recorded the
statement of one Ganaraj and CW3. He has stated that, one
Roopa R. was working on contract basis in the factory of accused
and on the date of incident she has joined the work at about 8.30
a.m. and at the time of work the lid of the tin was fallen in the
kettle bowl and immediately she tried to take her right hand and at
that time the bank worn by her was entangled in shaft bolt and
when she tried to remove her hand she has sustained grievous
injuries to her right hand. So, immediately one Ganaraj had
switched off the machine and has separated her hand and taken
her to the hospital. As the factory Managers have not taken safety
measures they have committed the offences under Factories Act
5 CC.NO.3830/2008
and so he has filed complaint as per Ex.P.1 and has got marked the
photographs, Form No.17, report, copy of the notice and reply
notice as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and got marked the photograph and
negatives as per Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.10(a) to Ex.P.12(a).
8. In his cross-examination has denied that entire case is based
on hear say evidence and has admitted that he has not witnessed
the alleged incident personally. He has denied that, instead of
closing the case he has filed complaint before the court alleging
against the accused of the negligence and has denied that worker
Roopa had intentionally removed the mesh and put it by her side.
Further he has stated that, he took the photo of the machine on
28.11.2007 through photographer by name Govinda Kutty in his
presence and has denied that the said photographs have been
taken place as per his convenience and has denied other
suggestions made by the defence counsel.
9. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, no
doubt the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution.
But in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not
witnessed the incident. The injured Roopa and other eye witnesses
have not been examined by the prosecution. So, non examination
of material witnesses by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution.
So, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offences against
the accused. Merely basing on the documentary evidence placed by
the prosecution it cannot be held that accused has committed the
offence alleged by the complainant. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following :
6 CC.NO.3830/2008
ORDER
Accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.92 of Factories Act 1948.
Accused No.1 is acquitted u/s.255 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s.92 of Factories Act 1948.
Bail bond of the accused No.1 and that of her surety stands cancelled.
Keep the entire record of this case with split up case against accused No.2. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 8th Day of November 2016) (Roopa R. Kulkarni) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:-
PW.1 : Ravindranath List of exhibits marked for prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Private complaint Ex.P.2 : Notice dated 27.11.2007 Ex.P.3 : Form NO.17 Ex.P.4 : Report dated 28.11.2007 Ex.P.5 : Office copy of notice Ex.P.6 & 7: Reply notice Ex.P.8 : Form No.2 Ex.P.9 : Letter of accused dated 26.12.2008 Ex.P.10 to 7 CC.NO.3830/2008 Ex.P.12: Photographs Ex.P.10(a) To 12(a) : Negatives List of M.Os marked for prosecution:- Nil List of witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:-
Nil.
(Roopa R. Kulkarni) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.8 CC.NO.3830/2008
08.11.2016 State by Senior APP Accused Judgment ORDER (Pronounced in open court vide separate order) Accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.92 of Factories Act 1948.
Accused No.1 is acquitted u/s.255 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s.92 of Factories Act 1948.
Bail bond of the accused No.1 and that of her surety stands cancelled.
Keep the entire record of this case with split up case against accused No.2. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 8th Day of November 2016) (Roopa R. Kulkarni) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
9 CC.NO.3830/2008