STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAFULCHANDRA SOMCHAND SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This appeal by the State of Gujarat, is directed against the impugned judgment and order, dated 5-2-1992, rendered in Criminal Case No. 2964 of 1984 by the learned J.M.F.C., Jamnagar. wherein the respondent Prafulchandra Somchand Shah, who came to be tried for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 21(I)(iv)(b) read with Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, was at the end of the trial ordered to be acquitted.

(2.) . According to Mr. K. N. Gandhi, the Factory Inspector, Jamnagar, on 3-4-1984, at about 5-35 p.m., he received a telephonic message from "Oshwal Valve Manufacturing Company", situated at B/141 M.P. Shah Udyognagar, Jamnagar, to the effect that Bai Hamida Siddiqbhai, aged 18, a woman worker in the said factory, had met with an accident wherein her left hand just below the elbow portion was cut off as it came in between the pulley and belt of the machine where she was working. On the basis of this information, the Factory Inspector visited the said factory and on taking inspection, it came to his notice that the machine in question wherein Bai Hamida was injured was 5 H.P. with 1525 RPM and was in working condition. It had a 'Thada' (sitting place) and accordingly could be operated by sitting nearby. Not only that but there was no protective guard of any type to cover the pulley and belt. Immediately thereafter, he visited Sir Irvin Hospital, Jamnagar, where injured Bai Hamida was removed for medical treatment and recorded there her statement, Exh. 12. Thereafter, on the next day, i.e., 4-4-1984, he received notice of accident, Exh. 10 in Form No. 21, which is required to be immediately sent under Rule 103 of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 ("Rules" for short) prescribed under Sec. 88 of the Factories Act, 1948 ("Factories Act" for short) which pertains to the 'notice of certain accident, duly signed by the Manager of the factory'. Thereafter, on 9-4-1984, when he visited the factory, the machine in question where Bai Hamida received injury was found not having protective guards and on the basis of all these facts, the Factory Inspector prepared the inspection report, Exh. 8, and forwarded the same to the respondent Manager, alongwith diagram of the machine stating therein the dates of his earlier two visits and his findings that the machine in question was not having cover or protective guard. On the basis of these facts, the Factory Inspector ultimately filed complaint, Exh. 1 on 20-7-1984, against the respondent herein for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 21 (I) (iv) (b) read with Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamnagar, whereupon summons came to be issued against the respondents.

(3.) . At the trial, while explaining away the circumstances appearing against him under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to him, as per the requirements of Factories Act, Rules and Regulations, the pulley and the belt of the machine in question was duly covered and properly guarded. Thereafter, when a specific question was put to him as to what he haste say about, firstly, the Inspection Report Exh. 8 and secondly, Exh. 10, i.e., Form No. 21 sent to him as the Factory Inspector stating therein the very facts alleged in the complaint, surprisingly enough not controverting the same his reply was that he had nothing to say . Similarly, when a question was put to him about the evidence given by Bai Hamida about the manner in which the alleged accident took place, it was replied that when the workers are employed in factory at that time they were duly explained about the safety measures and were also further instructed not to touch the belt and pulley in question on which they were working as separate foremen were employed for that purpose.