JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc., petition is directed against the order dated 31.7.1997 and 21.11.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur whereby he reviewed/recalled order dated 16.8.1996.

(2.) The facts necessary to dispose of the petition are these. The Senior Inspector Factories and Boilers, Jodhpur filed a criminal complaint against Jitendra Singh (petitioner) on 24.8.1993 wherein it was stated that there was accident in the factory M/s. Asiatic Traders belonging to petitioner, in which two persons got serious injuries, the information of which was received by the Inspector on 18.5.1993, whereupon he inspected the establishment of Jitendra Singh on 5.6.1993 and noticed that there were no fixed guards or automatic on interlocking guards on the four power process machines, which were working in the factory. It was prayed that Jitendra Singh be convicted under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and a direction be issued under Sec. 102 that he fixed guards over the power process machines. On this complaint notice was issued to Jitendra Singh, who appeared on 16.8.1996. On that day, Jitendra Singh made a request that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society Vs. Union of India the proceedings be closed. The learned Magistrate accepted the request and closing the proceedings acquitted Jitendra Singh. Thereafter, because of the clarificatory judgment of the Supreme Court, the complainant filed an application on 25.2.1997 for restoring the criminal case decided on 16.8.1996. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 31.7.1997 restored the Criminal Case No. 332/93 and issued notice to Jitendra Singh (petitioner). This order is under challenge in this misc. petition.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Singh was two fold. One, the complaint was not filed within three months from the date of alleged fact came to the notice of the inspector and therefore, the cognizance was barred under Sec. 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. Two, the case should not have been restored on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the Second Common Cause case as it was not covered by the directions given in that case.