INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES Vs. S N KANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel representing the respondent- accused.

(2.) The Inspector of Factories, Cuddapah, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad had preferred he present Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram in S.T.C. No. 31 of 1993 dated 30th December, 1998.

(3.) The appellant-complainant filed the complaint against the respondent-accused for contravention of Section 7A(1) read with Sections 36, Section 46(2)(b) and Rule 66 (3), Section 47 and Rule 72 of Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28-7-1992 at 9.00 a.m. the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Kurnool and Inspector of Factories, Cuddapah inspected the Texmaco Limited (Cement Division), Yerraguntla and it is stated that respondent- accused was the occupier and on inspection they found that respondent-accused allowed the untrained and in-experienced contract workers Chereddy Venkata Subbareddy, Sreenivasulu and Seenu to clear the clinker jammed in the extraction and discharge chutes at the belt conveyor No. 27, running inside the under ground tunnel of the clinker stock point. On 24-7-1992, without testing and inspecting the work place inside and without constant supervision, due to which Chereddy Venkata Subbareddy died. It is also the case of the prosecution that the respondent-accused also failed to extend canteen facility for the contract workers and also failed to provide separate dining accommodation for women workers employed in the company. It is also the case of the prosecution that respondent-accused failed tc provide rest house for workers employed in the factory. Basing on the allegations made in the complaint, the case was taken on file under Section 7A(1) read with Section 36 and under Section 46(2) and Rule 66(3) and under Section 42 and Rule 72 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 ana Exs. P-1 to P-10 were marked. D.W. 1 was examined and Ex. D-1-attested Xerox copy of correspondence pertaining to rest shed had also been marked. On appreciation of the evidence available on record in detail, the learned Magistrate recorded findings to the effect that the relevant material witness had not been examined. There is no acceptable evidence to establish the allegations made in the complaint and further the evidence of D.W. 1 had also been relied upon and a further specific finding had been recorded that the prosecution as such, as against the alleged occupier-respondent- accused cannot be maintained in the light of the fact that it cannot be said that Texmaco Limited (Cement Division), Yerraguntla can be said to be the occupier within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Act. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and also P.W. 2 had been discussed at length and in view of the fact of respondent- accused was not the Director of the Company as admitted by P.W. 2, he cannot be said to be the occupier within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Act and on that ground also acquittal had been recorded.