PRABHU DAYAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the crimimal prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 as well as the order daten 7-1-1989 by which cognizance of the offence mentioned above has been taken against the petitioner.

(2.) On 9-10-1988 which was Sunday, the Factory Inspector, Giridih along with head (sic) and driver inspected the establishment of the petitioner which is under name and style as Gupta & sons and is situated in a double storyed building. The establishment of the petitioner functions on the ground- floor and the petitioner resides on the first-floor with his family members. During the course of inspection the attendance and payment registers were seized. From perusal of the registers, it was noticed that a number of workers engaged in over time work were 16 on the day of inspection but no prior permission as required under Section 52 of the Factory Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was taken by the petitioner. From the registers, it also transpired that 36 workers are employed in the establishment of the petitioner. At the time of inspection, it was found that the work of mica finishing by cutting and splitting of crude and semi finished mica into required shapes and sizes as also the work of shelving by manually operated Jharna to separate the pieces of mica of different sizes from mixture of mica of odd shapis and sizes mixed with mica dust were being carried out. It was also found that the workers were also engaged in packing work of the finished products. The nature of the work going on in the establishment showed that it is a factory as denned in Section 2 (m) (ii) of the Act. In course of inspection it also transpired that the building in which the factory was established has not been approved by Chief Inspector of Factory nor licence under the Rule 4 of the Factories Rules has been obtained by the petitioner before starting manufacturing process in the factory. The aforesaid action of the petitioner is against the provision as contained in Section 6 of the Act and Rules 3 and 4 of the Factory Rules. Further case of the complainant is that he prepared inspection report and tried to hand over a copy of the same to Anil Kumar Gupta one of the sons of the petitioner who refused to receive the same. When the complainant wanted to go out the factory along with the seized registers. Anil Kumar Gupta along with others snatched the seized registers from the Opposite Party No. 2. The complainant thereafter went to the Town Police Station, Giridih and lodged First Information Report under Sections 142, 342, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid facts Opposite Party No. 2 vide office letter No. 1002, dated 4-11-1988 asked the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder within 15 days from the date of letter. As the petitioner did not comply with the provision of the Act and Rules framed thereunder the complaint was filed on 6-1-1989 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih under Section 92 of the Act. As stated above, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, took cognizance