Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in (2006) 16 , SCC 1 (Manoj Sharma Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.) in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if in non-compoundable offences, the court can exercise its power under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. though the court has to see the nature as well as impact of the offence on the society.

11. Having relied upon the aforesaid decision, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that filing of withdrawal petition by the inspector of factories amounts to compounding of the offence and, therefore, even if the offence in question, is not compoundable in nature, this court can exercise its power vested under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law.

12. On the other hand, Sri Mayanand Jha, Addl. P.P. appearing for the state submits that no doubt, the case of the petitioner comes under the purview of Section-2(N)(iii) of Factories Act but as a matter of fact, at the relevant time, the petitioner was occupier of the aforesaid factory and moreover, the aforesaid question is a question of fact which can be investigated only in course of trial. It is further contended by him that according to Annexure-3 to this petition, the Government of India notified Sri Subhash Prasad, Senior Refinery Co-ordinator of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd as an occupier on 10-07-2006 , i.e. before the date of occurrence of the present case. It is further contended by him that it is an admitted position that previous Director, namely, Sri U.P. Singh had already relinquished his charge before the inspection of the inspector of factories and the aforesaid Subhash Prasad was notified as occupier vide notification of Government of India dated 10th July, 2006 and, therefore, between the above-said period of handing over charge by above-said U.P. Singh and the publication of the above-said notification, the petitioner being Director of Marketing Department was the occupier of the aforesaid premises and, therefore, he cannot escape from his liability. It is further contended by him that so far as decision reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1 is concerned, the same is not applicable in the present case because admittedly, the offences under Factories Act have been made in the larger interest of the society and permission for compounding the aforesaid offences cannot be granted by the court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C.