H K TREHON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Writ Petition is preferred by the petitioners/accused by invoking the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Cr. P.C. thereby praying that the two judgment and order dated 23/11/2012 passed by the Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao and also the judgment and order dated 9/1/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First (JMFC), Vasco be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The Respondent/State through a Factory Inspector has presented a Criminal Case No.7/OA/FA/2012/B against the petitioners accused under the Factories Act of 1948 that the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act of 1948. On perusal of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate on 9/1/2012 took cognizance and issued summons to the accused and gave notice to the complainant and the matter was fixed on the next date. The said order of the Magistrate was challenged, especially on the ground that the order does not disclose application of mind and therefore, is not legal and proper. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties rejected the revision and confirmed the order passed by the JMFC. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has taken me to the complaint filed by the complainant, the Inspector of Factories. He submitted that the complaint does not disclose factual matrix, but the complaint is in the nature of the conclusions that there is a violation of certain rules, and certain sections and, hence, the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act is committed. Learned counsel argued that the in the absence of the factual details, it is not possible for the learned Magistrate to arrive at a conclusion and to take the cognizance that the offence mentioned in the complaint has really taken place or not. He has submitted that for the purpose of taking cognizance under section 190 of Cr. P.C. and, for issuance of process under section 204, the Magistrate should restrict himself to the complaint and cannot look into the other documents annexed therewith. If this is so, in the present complaint, no details are mentioned about the time, date, place and as to when the offence is committed so also in what manner the offence has been committed. He submitted that the order passed by the learned JMFC is very cryptic and it does not reflect that he has applied his mind. It is necessary to mention the reasons to disclose that the magistrate has applied his mind