MISHRA A K Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order taking cognizance dated December 8, 1995 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been impugned by the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) One Sachita Nand Singh, opposite party No. 2, being Factory Inspector of Ranchi Anchal No. 1. filed a complaint on July 5, 1995 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. showing the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 as the members of the Board of Directors and petitioner No. 10 as Manager of the Factory, Foundry Forge Plant of H.E.G. Ltd. Ranehi. It is alleged that though the Bihar Government issued a notification dated February 13, 1989 to the effect that "occupier" of the Foundry Forge Plant (hereinafter referred to as "the Plant') should employ 5 qualified Safety Officers and even this Court by its order dated February 23, 1995 passed in CWCJ No. 8387/1994 (R) directed the Chief Inspector of Factories to take steps for appointment of qualified officers, Chief Inspector of Factories by his letters dated March 13 and 15, 1995 directed the management to appoint 5 regular qualified safety officers but the same was not complied with. As the Foundry Forge Plant is a factory of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi and since presently no Director has been appointed by the Central Government as 'occupier' of the factory, all the directors of the factory being 'occupiers' and petitioner No. 10 as Manager of the concerned factory are responsible for violation of the provisions of Section 48-B of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 62-B of the Bihar Factories Rules. On the basis of said report, by the impugned order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence as aforesaid and hence this application.

(3.) Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged that as the petitioners Nos. 2,3,5,6 and 7 were appointed by the Government of India as part time Directors of the Board of Directors of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., they were only required to attend meetings and decide such matters of the company as are placed for decision before the Board and they were not in any way involved in day-to-day affairs of the management of the company which will appear from the appointment letters annexed as Annexure 2 series to this application. According to him, when the complainant himself has admitted that till date no Director has been appointed as 'occupier' of the factory by the Central Government, he could not have prayed for taking cognizance against all the members of the Board without specifying as to which of the Director/ Directors was/were responsible for day-to-day affairs as occupier of the factory. Referring to the registration certificate and licence (Annexure 3) Mr. Prasad contends that the factory is registered under the Act and the licence will show that Sri. J. P. Pandey has been shown as 'occupier' of the said factory. Similarly defending the cause of petitioner No. 10, I. AH, he contends that no prosecution lies against this petitioner also inasmuch as being Senior Deputy General Manager (Operation), Incharge Foundry Forge Plant, he has admittedly not been shown as 'occupier' of the factory in the licence. Referring to the allegations made against the petitioners for non-appointing 5 qualified safety officers, learned counsel has referred to various documents in support of his contention that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are devoid "of merit. But, in my opinion, at this stage this Court will not probe into the matter for coming to a conclusion as to whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners were correct or not. The only question that has to be considered as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 who are admittedly the members of the Board of Directors and petitioner No. 10 being Senior Deputy General Manager (Operation) will be said to be the "occupiers" of the factory.