ARISTIDES PROTONOTARIOS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondent. Perused the records.

(2.) The Deputy Director of Factories lodged a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging contravention of provision of section 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Factories Act, 1948 which is punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to petitioners to answer the charge. Petitioners have approached this court seeking to quash the impugned proceedings.

(3.) (i) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, referring to the statement of injured employee, would submit that the alleged accident has taken place wholly on account of the negligence of employee. He has unequivocally admitted in his deposition that by oversight, he left his index finger below the fork and sustained injury. He has even given an undertaking to be careful in future while operating the machinery. Further, learned Senior Counsel referred to Annexure-'E' and emphasized that all the employees, including the injured employee, were given necessary training before operating the machinery. The said machine by itself, did not require any safeguards. However, solely on account of the advice given by the Inspector of Factories, necessary mesh was provided to the stacker. These facts, therefore, would clearly go to show that the alleged accident has not taken place on account of failure of petitioners providing any safety measure, rather the incident having taken place on account of negligence of the employee, prosecution of petitioners for the alleged mishap is legally untenable and amounts to abuse of process of court and thus prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings initiated against petitioners.