Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.97 seconds)Section 107 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Mr. A. Goutam Datta vs ) State By The Inspector Of Factories on 4 April, 2017
10.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioners are
Manager and Occupier of Tube Investments of India Ltd.,. It is not
disputed that the accident was happened on 28.06.2021, in that accident,
worker namely Mr.Arumugam S/o Arumugaswamy, while working on a 63
ton Press, met with serious accident. Thereafter, on 06.07.2021, the
inspection took place and noticed contraventions, in consequence, a show
cause notice dated 19.07.2021 was issued to the Occupier and the Manager
of the company during the above inspection. For that show cause notice, a
reply has been given on 24.07.2021, thereafter, re-inspection was done on
31.08.2021 and found the same irregularities, hence, after obtaining
sanction dated 14.09.2021, the impugned complaint has been filed on
22.09.2021. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
is, a non consideration of the explanation of the petitioners submitted to
the show cause notice, the complaint was silent on this aspect, it reflects
the non application of mind in filing the criminal complaint. Hence, the
criminal complaint is liable to be quashed. To support his argument, the
learned counsel heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dayle De'souza Vs. Government of India Through Deputy Chief
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.23468 & 23500 of 2021
Labour Commissioner (C) and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine
1012. Further, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Inspector of Factories, Vellore v. Showa Engineering Ltd.,
Shollinghur reported in 2007 (4) LLN 828 which was followed by this
Court in another case in A.Goutam Datta V. The State reported in (2017)
SCC OnLine Mad 18593. The learned counsel further submitted that an
appeal opportunity prescribed in terms of Section 107 of the Factories Act,
1948 was denied to the petitioners. Therefore, on this ground, the criminal
complaints are liable to be quashed.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
L.Ganesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2019
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in
respect of the show cause notice dated 06.07.2021, the petitioners
submitted detailed reply on 24.07.2021, wherein, the petitioners
specifically pointed out that A.Arumugam unauthorizedly operated the
Press, which resulted in the unfortunate accident. The petitioners also
produced documentary proof of training given to the said person. The
petitioners also submitted that apart from the existing safety norms,
additional safety apparatus has been installed. In the complaint filed by the
respondent, there is no reference to the said reply at all. The complaint
does not disclose that the respondent considers the legal provisions in the
context of the factual background before initiating the prosecution. The
Madras High Court in the case of L.Ganesan and Anr V. State of Tamil
Nadu by order dated 19.08.2019 in Crl.O.P.Nos.23034 & 23035 of 2015
has held that when a reply is given to the show cause notice, the said reply
has to be considered and dealt with at the time of filing of complaint,
failing which, the complaint itself becomes unsustainable on the ground of
non-application of mind and that such a complaint is an abuse of process
of Court and no useful purpose would be served by making the persons to
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.23468 & 23500 of 2021
undergo the ordeal of trial before the court of law.
Dayle De Souza vs Government Of India Thr. Deputy Chief ... on 2 August, 2021
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayle D' Souza V.
Government of India reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 1012 has held
that non consideration of explanation submitted to the show cause notice
and a complaint which is bereft and silent on these aspects would highlight
whether the authorities considered the legal provisions in the context of the
factual background before initiating the prosecution. It was further held
that criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course or
without adequate and necessary investigation of facts on mere suspicion or
when the violation of law is doubtful. Hence, it is submitted that the
criminal proceedings filed by respondent against the petitioners are liable
to quashed and thus, pleaded to quash the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners.
1