R RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a complaint against the revision petitioner under the provisions of the Factories Act, in that, Section 33 of the said Act had been violated. The sum and substance of the complaint is an open pit in the vacant factory area had not been covered securely as contemplated under Section 33 of the Factories Act, which led to the death of a worker when he accidentally fell into the pit. The accused was questioned under Section 251 Cr. P.C. on 19/12/ 1997. In the common cause case, a time limit of 2 years was fixed and in the absence of any progress within that time there was a direction to close the prosecution. The revision petitioner moved an application on 17/12/1999 to close the prosecution stating that no progress at all is made. Though the learned Trial Magistrate found that two years had elapsed since the questioning of the accused. yet he dismissed the application on the sole ground that the offence complained of would come within Chapter XIV I.P.C.

(2.) The second judgment on common cause case is Common Cause v. Union of India. Certain offences have come to be excluded under this judgment from the time limit of 2 years fixed by the earlier judgment. Among the offences excluded from the said time schedule the following offences also form a part.'Offences affecting public health safety convenience decency and morals as listed in Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code or such offences under any other law for the crime being in force.

(3.) The offence complained of in this case is under the Factories Act. The question that comes up for consideration is whether the failure to cover the open pit in the vacant area securely would establish an offence relating to the offence complained of under Chapter XIV I.P.C. Offences under Factories Act came up for consideration before this Court in Crl.R.C. Nos. 494 to 496 of 1997. In fact the offences complained of in, those cases were more stringent in nature and they are as follows: not fitting the winding 1996 (6) see 775. machines with interlocking arrangement not providing with efficient interlocking arrangement with the blow room not providing with belt drives with the condensor CIMMCO automatic powerlooms are not guarded by safeguards of substantial construction Among the violations referred to thereunder some of the violations were with reference to the machinery itself. Section 287 in Chapter XIV I.P.C. deals with the offence of negligent conduct with respect to machinery. Having all the provisions of law in mind, the learned Judge of this Court held in the above referred to revisions that the offence complained of in those criminal revisions would not come within the excepted cases referred to earlier in the second common cause case and with that view in mind terminated the entire proceedings.