PRASHANT BOTHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in both the petitions have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for their entire criminal proceeding and cognizance orders in C/2 Case No. 73 of 2007 (in Cr.M.P. No. 954 of 2009) as also in C/2 Case No. 78 of 2007 (in Cr.M.P. No. 957 of 2009) for almost common cause wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella took the cognizance of the offence under Section 95 of the Factories Act in both the complaints filed by the O.P. No. 2-Factory Inspector.

(2.) Common prosecution story in both the complaints was that on 24.07.2007 one workman Nitai Karmakar while was cleaning the kiln No. 2 by entering insider the kiln and was using electric lamp, he came in contact with necked electric wire and sustained electric shock at about 3.55 p.m. He was immediately removed and brought to the Hospital where he was declared dead. On receipt of the information about such mishappening, the complainant-Factory Inspector visited the site of accident. He by his letter No. 346 dated 27.07.2007 sought for the following registers/informations:

(3.) It was alleged in the complaint C/2 Case No. 73 of 2007 that the information as sought for were to be furnished by the Occupier and Manager by 31.07.2007 but despite such communication in writing aforesaid, the Petitioners being the Occupier and the Manager of M/s Kohinoor Steel (Pvt.) Limited did not produce such documents, registers and thereby each of them violated the provisions of Rule 102 of the Bihar Factory Rules. 1950 adopted by State of Jharkhand and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 95 of the Factories Act, 1948. The complaint was registered on 11.12.2007 against the Petitioners (in Cr.M.P. No. 954 of 2009).