KHEM RAM Vs. STATE OF UP. (NOW UTTARAKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21 -08 -1997 passed by Special Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1996 affirming the judgment and order dated 15 -11 -1996 passed in Criminal Case No. 334 of 1995 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, whereby the revisionists had been convicted and sentenced under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and each of them was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/ -, failing which, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present revision are that a complaint was filed under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 by Assistant Director (Factories) UP. against the revisionists to the effect that on 30 -11 -1994 at about 4.30 a.m., a worker - Shyam Lal -fell from the roof while working in the Regional Workshop of Roadways Department at Tanakpur. He was taken to Keshlata Hospital, Bareilly, where, at about 9 p.m. he succumbed to his injuries. According to the complainant, the information of the above accident was neither given to him either on Telephone or by telegram or Special Messenger as per rules nor information was given lateron in Proforma 18 within 12 hours of the accident. According to the Inspector, on 30 -11 -1994, at about 4.30 a.m., the work of repair was going on in the workshop of UP. Roadways at Tanakpur and the deceased along with other workers was changing the asbestos -sheet of 30' high roof. While he was changing the sheet, suddenly an old asbestos sheet under the foot of the deceased, slipped, due to which, he had lost his balance and feel head -on on the ground in pucca floor. Due to such injuries, he died lateron in the hospital. The complainant has also stated in his complaint that there were chances of falling down while repairing 30' high roof and the concerned authorities have not adopted necessary safety measures of fencing and other safety arrangements to avoid the accident. The worker was also not provided with safety -belt and helmet. Due to non -adoption of safety arrangements, the worker Shyam Lal died. These short -comings were noticed by the complainant during the inspection of the workshop, which were mentioned, in his report dated 15 -12 -1994.

(3.) IN support of the prosecution case, complainant A.K. Gupta examined himself as P.W.1. He has stated that on 30 -11 -1994 at 4:30 p.m., the work of changing the asbestos sheet on the roof was going on. Deceased Shyam Lal along with other labourers was working. All of a sudden, an old sheet under the foot of the deceased slipped and he fell head -on on the ground in pucca floor. Due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he died on 30 -11 -1994 in the hospital. There was probability of falling down of the deceased from the roof but the sufficient safety measures of fencing etc. were not taken. For safety purposes, there should have been provision of safety -belt and helmet for the workers. The information of the accident was not given to the department. According to the complainant, he recorded the statements of Sheru Tamta, Lalit Prasad, Bhoop Ram, Sunder Lal and Sheem Ram. In his cross -examination, the complainant has deposed that he tried his level best to collect the materials regarding the death of deceased worker - Shyam Lal. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, gathered information from the Police Station and Hospital. He admitted that in 'Amar Ujala' daily, the name of deceased was written as Harish Chandra. He also stated that in his report, he had mentioned the addresses of the witnesses examined by him. He admitted that during the course of enquiry, it came to his knowledge that the deceased worker was in the employment of the contractor. He denied the allegation that he did not conduct the enquiry as per rules.