NIGAM CHANDERBAHL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dtd. 4/1/2011 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro in Factory case No. 01 of 2011 whereby and where under the learned C.J.M. Bokaro has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 against these petitioners. It has been pointed out that the petitioner no. 1- Nigam Chandra Bahl is the occupier and petitioner no. 2- D.P. Banerjee, is the Manager of the factory M/S Electrosteel Steels Ltd. Siyaljori, Chandankyari, district-Bokaro and the allegation against them is that on 14/10/2010 from the under constructed S.M.S of factory premises one workman Vasisht Mahatha fell down during the work from High Bay Structural Platform by which he died and after the said incident the statement of the co-workers were recorded. It was alleged that the factory premises was unsafe and dangerous and no step was taken for the railing and fencing of the same, therefore, the deceased workman fell down from the under constructed high Bay platform and he died. It has also been alleged that the said workman was not provided the safety belts by the occupier and the Manager of the factory and as such it has been alleged against this petitioner that there was a violation of sec. 33 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948 which is an offence punishable under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and accordingly, the detailed prosecution report was submitted before the Court of C.J.M., Bokaro by which the C.J.M., Bokaro took the cognizance against these two petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act vide order dtd. 4/1/2011 which is under challenge.

(3.) It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no question of any violation of sec. 33 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and as such no offence under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been committed by the petitioners because the prosecution has failed to appreciate that the place of incident where the work was being carried out does not fall within the ambit of factory as defined under the Factories Act, because no manufacturing process was going on at the relevant point of time in the factory premises which was under construction site of SMS (Steel Melting Shop) which is an admitted fact.