STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. A K MAHANSARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent-accused, upon his conviction on admission for a contravention of the provisions of a rule framed under the Factories Act, 1948 and punishable under section 92 thereof. The respondent is the occupier of M/s. Balkrishna Paper Mills Ltd. , Ambivali P. O. , Mohane, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The worker of a contractor engaged by the petitioner for carrying out certain works met with a fatal accident on 6th July 1983. The fact of this death was inquired into by the complainant Inspector of Factories. The facts were as under:

(2.) ONE Gulamuddin Mohiddin Kureshi was one of the workers employed by the contractor. He had been working near the asbestas sheet roof of Plant No. III of the paper mill. The work being carried out by him and other workers was of water proofing of gutter of the said plant building. While so working near the asbestas roof the said workman Gulamuddin Mohiddin Kureshi happened to step on an A. C. sheet which unfortunately gave way whereby the said workmen fell down from a height of 42 feet on the ground receiving serious injuries and died on the spot. Inquiries conducted by the Inspector of Factories revealed that the respondent accused as the occupier of the factory, as bound by the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, had committed a contravention of the provisions of Rule 73 (f) of the Act, in that no suitable and sufficient number of ladders duck ladders, crawling boards as required by law were provided to the workers. A permit to work near fragile roof as required to be issued to a worker by some responsible person of the factory had also not been issued. Therefore, according to the complainant, the respondent-accused was liable to be punished under section 92 of the Act.

(3.) UPON a charge in this behalf framed against the respondent-accused, he pleaded guilty and offered no defence. He was, therefore, convicted. While dealing with the question of award of sentence the learned Magistrate observed that there was no ill-intention on the part of the accused in not providing the ladders, duck ladders, crawling boards, etc. , though of course, the fact of contravention of the provisions of Rule 73 (F) was incontrovertible. He was, therefore, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- and in default to suffer R. I. for one month.