STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRAVINBHAI A KIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 27. 05. 2008 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 995 of 1992 whereby the respondent-accused person was acquitted of the charge of offences under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 61 of the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963. The criminal case arose out of an accident in which on 21. 12. 1991 the equipments attached to a boiler exploded in the factory and an employee injured in the accident lost his life after five days of treatment. The prosecution launched by Factory Inspector resulted into the impugned order of acquittal on account of insufficient evidence and complete lack of evidence as regards status in the factory of the accused person. The accused person took the defence in his statement under section 313 of Cr. P. C. that he had nothing to do with the factory in which the accident had happened. The prosecution failed in bringing on record any evidence of any particular person being in charge of the factory as manager or otherwise. During the course of arguments before this Court also, learned A. P. P. could not point out any positive evidence about the status and relationship of the accused person in relation to the factory, except appearance of first name of the respondent in the document at Exh. 12. It is, inter alia, stated in that document that the staff and workers as well as the owner Shri Pravinbhai contributed Rs. 3,221/- towards relief to the deceased employee. It is also stated therein that the company was committing Rs. 50,000/- towards economic relief to the heirs of deceased employee. It could not be concluded from reading of this document that the person named as owner and Shri Pravinbhai, who is obviously distinct from the employer company, was, at the relevant time, the owner or occupier and the person who was implicated as the accused person.

(2.) IT was argued by learned counsel Mr. Shelat, with the support of affidavit of one Kiritbhai G. Modi, that the mother and the widow of deceased employee were duly and adequately compensated by the employer and hence the apprehension about injustice to the family of the deceased was misplaced.

(3.) IN the above facts and circumstances and in absence of any conclusive evidence of the accused person being in charge of the factory as occupier or owner, the acquittal could not be converted into conviction by taking different view of the evidence on record. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.