STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHARAD AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dtd. 9/12/2011 passed in C.C. No.537/2006 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Malur, whereby the learned JMFC acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Against the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.26/2012 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, at Kolar, whereby the learned Sessions Judge vide order dtd. 30/7/2012 has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, in view of Sec. 378(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as ' Cr.P.C .,').

(2.) It is the contention of the prosecution that the respondent/Corporation - M/s. Malur Tubes Private Limited, is situated at Malur, Kolar District. It is further contended that on 12/4/2006 at about 02:30 p.m. two contract workers by name Kannan and Narayan Singh met with an accident while working on the straightening machine installed in the premises of the factory of the accused-respondent/Corporation. On the date of incident, the right hand index finger and thumb of Narayansingh were caught in between the machine and he sustained serious crush injuries and Kannan sustained crush injuries over his right hand fingers and they were immediately taken to the hospital. The said workers were working in the factory of the respondent/accused since 10/4/2006 under contractor. Then the Assistant Director of Factories had visited the factory and found that there is some contravention of Factories Act and Rules by the respondent/accused and he has not provided any safeguards to the workers. He also found that the respondent/accused has not taken permission to carry out installation of new welding plant and thereby contravened the Factories Act and Rules. The Assistant Director of Factories has stated that at the time of investigation, he has observed that the straightening machine was not properly fenced by safeguards and the respondent/accused had not submitted the intimation of the accident to the complainant within 24 hours of the accident. Hence, he lodged a complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned JMFC took cognizance and issued summons to the accused.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked twelve documents as per Exs.P1 to P12. Recorded the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. The respondent/accused, neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents. After hearing the arguments, the learned JMFC acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal.