RAMKISAN SHIVRATAN PITTI Vs. D.S. DHARMASTHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the accused in the Court below, has been found guilty under Section 21(7)(iv)(c) read with Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment in default and this conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, in revision. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Courts below were in error in convicting him of the offence in question and in not properly considering his complaint filed under Section 101 of the Factories Act,

(2.) THE few facts, which it is necessary to note for the purpose of deciding this grievance, are that the petitioner -accused happens to be the manager of the Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd., Poona, which is a factory as defined in Section 2(m)(i) of the Factories Act. On the night of October 27, 1966, a worker named Kantilal Babu was directly feeding cotton to the porcupine opener machine. When the machine stopped, the worker started cleaning the fluted rollers. While he was doing so, the machine suddenly started, with the result that the hand of the worker was caught into the rollers and crushed upto the wrist. His right hand had eventually to be amputee upto the wrist. The fluted rollers, according to the prosecution, formed a dangerous part of the porcupine opener machine and since no guard was provided for those rollers, there was a contravention of the provision of Section 21(7)(iv)(c) of the Factories Act for which the accused was liable under Section 92.

(3.) IT appears that the case filed against the present accused was tried as a summons case and the statement of this accused under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on August 5, 1967. The case was thereafter adjourned for hearing on November 11, 1967, but the hearing was adjourned from time to time and after a number of adjournments, the same actually commenced on November 6, 1968. In the meantime, a formal charge was framed against this accused on September 4, 1967. The complaint filed by the accused against the alleged real offender under Section 101 of the Factories' Act was filed in Court on September 2, 1968 after giving the requisite notice to the Factory Inspector on August 19, 1968. It is on these facts that the question raised on behalf of the accused has to be considered.