STATE REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS Vs. N V UNNIKRISHNAN, OCCUPIER, AVN AYURVEDA FORMULATION PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint of the Inspector of Factories, Madurai against the proprietor of M/s.AVN Ayurveda Formulation Private Limited was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in S.T.C.No.25 of 2014, dated 30.06.2014, State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that on 24.08.2013, the Joint Director, Industrial Safety and health, Madurai inspected the factory premises of M/s.AVN Ayurveda Formulation Private Limited at No.175-A, Villachery Main Road, Muniyandipuram, Pasumalai Post, Madurai, owned by N.V.Unnikrishnan. On that day early morning at about 03.20 a.m., there was a fire accident in the raw material godown of the said factory. The inspection of the Joint Director revealed that inflammable material like tolune and isoprophyl alcohol were stored in the raw material godown. The electrical wire were not drawn through conduit pipe. They were hanging loose. The switch board was not provided with earth leakage circuit breaker or miniature circuit breaker. Vapourisation of the inflammable materials stored and electrical leak due to loose wiring were found to be the cause of the fire accident, resulting in damage of goods worth Rs. 97 lakhs.

(3.) Based on the report, the Deputy Director has preferred a private complaint otherwise than a police report by a public servant. The substance of the complaint prima facie would indicate that the raw material godown of M/s.AVN Ayurveda Formulation Private Limited was not equipped with fire fighting instruments. Due to failure of providing fire protection equipments, like, automatic sprinkler and hydrant and due to storing inflammable materials, the wire which was not drawn through conduit pipe had caused electrical short circuit leading to damage of goods worth Rs. 97 lakhs. Had the factory owner taken sufficient precaution by providing automatic sprinkler and hydrant, the accident would have been averted. For failure to take precautionary measures as provided under Section 38(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 61(4)(a) and Section 38(3) read with Rules 61(10)(a) and 13 of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, complaint was lodged after issuing show cause notice.