STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SATYANARAYAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 28.2.1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1699/1990 acquitting the present respondent from the charges levelled against him.

(2.) The present respondent- Satyanarayan Sharma, who is the Manager of Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad was charged and tried by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1699/1990 for the breach of Rule 61(2) of the Gujarat Factory Rules, 1963, which is punishable under section 92 of the amended Factory Act, 1987. At the end of the trial, by the judgment and order dated 28.2.1995 the learned Magistrate has acquitted the present respondent from the offence for which he was charged.

(3.) Originally, it is the say of the original complainant Factory Inspector Mr. HJ Patel, Ahmedabad that he has visited Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 42 GIDC Indutrial Estate, Vatva, Ahmedabad on 29.3.1990, and at that time, respondent Satyanarayan Sharma was the manager of the said factory. The Factory Inspector Mr. HJ Patel has filed one complaint that on 28.3.1990 at about 8.00 O'clock workers of the said factory Shri Parmeshwar Ramsevak, Shivdarshan and Dhaniram Yadav met with some accident and due to that accident, Mr Patel has visited that factory and during the inquiry, it has come to his knowledge that factory was working with the Synthetic Cotton Process work with the printing machine, dyeing range machine, Jet dyeing machine etc. and on 28.3.1990 Shri Parmeshwar Ramsevak was working on sixth cylinder dying range machine and at about 8.00 O'clock there was a blast in cylinder of the said machine and due to this blast, some workers have received injuries. Shri Parmeshwar Ramsevak, worker, had received fatal injury and two other workers who have also received injury were also shifted to LG Hospital, Maninagar, Ahmedabad. During that visit, Factory Inspector Mr Patel inquired from the Factory Engineer Shri Jayantibhai and he explained that during the use of said machine, the pressure of the steam in the boiler is maintained and created upto 90 P.S.I. to 100 P.S.I. always created and dyeing range cylinder pressure should be around 40 P.S.I. to 50 P.S.I. and pressure of steam in the dyeing range cylinder is more than heavy steam pressure and it is the duty of the factory owner/responsible person to use reducing valve etc. and to take necessary steps to balance such pressure and to take care and caution. During the inquiry by Mr. Patel, Factory Inspector, it has come to his knowledge from the interrogation of fitter Dharamsinh Meraji who told him that reducing valve was not in a working condition and so it was opened on 22.3.1990 for repairing but at the time of accident it was not installed and due to heavy pressure, said accident took place. Such negligent act on the part of the said factory owner and responsible person amounts to a breach of section 61(2) of the Gujarat Factory Rules. So under the provisions of Section 92 of the Factory Act Mr. Patel has filed one complaint and process was issued, copies were given to the original accused present respondent and plea was recorded at Ex. 4. Prosecution had also examined witnesses. PW-1 Harshvardhan Jethabhai is examined at Ex. 5 and Form No. 21 is produced vide Ex. 6 and letters which were sent by respondent to the Factory Inspector were also produced vide Exh. 7,8 & 9. Expert's report with regard to the checking of dyeing range in Form No. 11 was produced vide ex. 10 and statement of fitter Dharamsinh Meraji was produced at Ex. 11. Visiting remarks of Mr. Patel is produced at Ex. 12 and vide Ex. 13 the complaint was produced. Thereafter, the statement of the respondent original accused was recorded by the trial court under the provisions of Sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said matter, the prosecution has also produced report of FSL at Ex. 15 and written arguments of the prosecution was also produced at ex. 16. At the conclusion of the rial, the learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 28.2.1995 acquitted the accused present respondent which is under challenge in this appeal by State under sec. 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court.