LAWS(PAT)-1999-11-129

RAJESH JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On November 26, 1999
RAJESH JAIN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') has been presented for quashing order dated 10.11.1993 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh taking cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 against the petitioner in Case No. G-343 of 1993 (Tr. No. 55 of 1998).

(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present proceeding are that there is a steel manufacturing factory at Ranchi Road, P.O. Marar, in the district of Hazaribagh belonging to M/s. Ashoka Steel Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner is the director of the said company, and occupier of the factory within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 . The company was possessing a licence bearing No. 45625/HBG for running the factory in question. It was valid up to 31.12.1992. When the Inspector of Factories, Hazaribagh, visited the factory of the petitioner in the year 1993, he noticed that even though manufacturing process was continued therein, the licence was not renewed for the year 1993 as required under Rule 7 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). He was served with notice, but failed to apply for renewal of the licence and pay penalty by way of late fee. Hence, the Inspector of Factories of Hazaribagh made a complaint against the petitioner for contravening the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Cognizance of the offence under Section 92 was taken on 10.11.1993 on the basis of the complaint petition dated 4.11.1993 made by the Inspector of Factories (opposite party No. 2 in the present proceeding). After taking cognizance, the case was made over to a Judicial Magistrate, first class for trial. To quash the said order of taking cognizance against him, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the discretionary power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code on the grounds that Rule 7 of the Rules is not a penal provision, therefore, its contravention is no offence; that subsequently, the petitioner got the licence renewed and thirdly, on the ground that according to the document annexed with the complaint, the complainant had come to know of the manufacturing process being carried on in the factory without renewal of the licence even in the month of January 1993. Therefore, complaint having been filed on 4.11.1993 and cognizance taken on the basis thereof on 10.11.1993 was barred by the provisions of Section 106 of the Factories Act.

(3.) It is well known that the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code is entirely discretionary in nature. One who approaches this Court with prayer to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction, is expected to come with clean breast. Unfortunately, in the present case, it is not so. The petitioner deliberately concealed certain material facts which, if disclosed, would have disentitled him to stand in the Court even at the time of admission and the application could have been thrown at the threshold. Cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner on 10.11.1993. He appeared before the transferee Magistrate on 7.7.1994 and was granted bail. Substance of the accusation was stated to him on 14.7.1994. As he denied the allegation, the prosecution examined the sole witness on 16.11.1994 and adduced documentary evidence on the same day. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Code on 28.11.1994 and entered defence. He examined a defence witness on 8.12.1994 and produced some documents in rebutted. Thereafter, the proceeding was adjourned for argument. However, the petitioner absented. On a couple of occasions, he was represented by his counsel, but since 14.2.1995 no step was taken on his behalf. Consequently, his bail was cancelled and coercive steps were taken to secure his appearance. When he failed to appeal, warrant of arrest was issued, but he successfully evaded the Court for more than three years and ultimately approached this Court by filing this application invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by deliberately concealing the above-mentioned facts. It will be useful to mention here that even though he purported to file certified copy of the orders made by the trial Court respecting the proceeding, he deliberately omitted to furnish copies of the orders made in the proceeding in the Court below between 14.7.1994 and 20.5.1996 (both dates inclusive). The omission was deliberate to conceal the fact that he had appeared in the trial Court; evidence was adduced on both sides and when it came for making submissions before judgment, he jumped bail. This conduct on the part of the petitioner alone is sufficient to dismiss the application. Even otherwise, for the reasons stated herein below, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought by him.