SFJ VAZ Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that arises for consideration in this application is whether the documents annexed to the complaint under section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code constitute part of the complaint and, as such, can be looked into for making out the offence alleged against him.

(2.) The facts on the background of which the question arises are as follows :

(3.) The company had conducted an internal inquiry about the incident and come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and due to lack of supervision of M/s. Jyoti Enterprises. It submitted the accident details under Rule 132(3) to the respondent-State and also made report to the SDM Mormugao. The company paid compensation to the legal representatives of Vikram Bind under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondents issued notices to both the applicants calling upon them to show cause as to why action under section 92 of the Factories Act be not taken against them. The petitioners filed separate replies to the show cause notice. The replies were rejected by the respondent by the order dated 1st November, 2011.