LAWS(GAU)-2003-11-16

DURGA DUTTA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On November 06, 2003
DURGA DUTTA TIWARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Head the learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.95 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 2(3)/95 upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in Case No. 3144/94 convicting the petitioner u/s 92 of the Factories Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh in default to suffer R.I. for six months.

(3.) The petitioner before us is a Manager of Borojalingah Tea Company, Cachar, Silchar and he was tried for the offence u/s 92 of the Factories Act for violation of the provisions of Section 29/32 of the Act. The prosecution story is that on 5.4.1994 a fatal accident occurred in the drier section of the Factory of the Tea Estate situated at Barjalenga. The Inspector of Factories visited the spot on the same day and found that there was a chimney behind the drier which was divided into three cylindrical portion and each is eight feet in length and twenty eight feet in diameter made of cast iron. The said chimney was under repairing and after repairing the chimney was erected against and the first portion was installed and subsequently when the second portion was erected on the first one, the rope gave way and an accident took place where one person was injured and he subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The matter was informed to the factory Inspector who made an enquiry and submitted offence report. The accused petitioner pleaded not guilty and the trial court examined the complainant. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted the accused petitioner u/s 92 of the Factories Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default to undergo R.I. for six months. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred C.A. No. 2(3)195 before the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, the present revision.