KRISHNA KUMAR SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in Criminal Complaint No. 946/2022. The petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceedings including the order of cognizance dtd. 29/9/2022 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Ss. 7A, 21 and 41 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rules 65(E) and 65(F) of the Rajasthan Factories Rules, 1951 (in short "the Rules of 1951").

(2.) The challenge is on the ground that the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken are not made out as well as on the ground that the mandates of the Factories Act were not followed before recommending for and filing complaint case.

(3.) The uncontroverted facts of the case are that Shriram Pistons and Rings Limited is a manufacturer and trader of pistons and rings etc. One of its Unit is running in the RIICO Industrial Area, Pathredi, Near Chopanki/Bhiwadi, District Alwar. In February, 2022, Mr. Rajnish Chauhan was appointed as Senior Associate Engineer-III in the maintenance department considering his educational qualification and experiences. On 30/5/2022, Mr. Chauhan was on his duty. He was informed that there is a breakdown of DCT Machine-17 and requires repair. Mr. Chauhan in presence of factory supervisor Krishan Kumar was engaged in carrying out the gap adjustment on the said machine with an Allen Key. As a matter of chance, Allen Key slipped off and fell down. Mr. Chauhan tried to take the key out. In doing so, the hand of Mr. Chauhan got trapped between the conveyor body and moving parts. Mr. Chauhan sustained permanent damage to the fingers. It was negligence on the part of Mr. Chauhan that without turning off the motion belt, he attempted to take out the key. Though there were warning instructions "do not put hands into the machine during operation". After due treatment, cost whereof was borne by the company, Mr. Chauhan reported to his duty on 25/8/2022. On 3/6/2022 respondent No. 2, the Chief Inspector of Factories, was informed about the accident in view of provision of Rule 101 of the Rules of 1951. On 30/6/2022, respondent No. 2 inspected the factory and recorded that there was no security cover on the front side of the said machine covering the area of 6 inch height x 2 feet 3 inch length and 1.5 width. However, respondent No. 2 recorded in the inspection note that on the date of inspection, the same was already covered. The inspection report aforesaid is the basis of the impugned complaint.