AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in STC No.12 of 2020 (old No.28 of 2016) on the file of Judicial II Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
The case of the petitioner in brief was that the petitioner No.1 was the Director of Piramal Enterprises Ltd and was a resident of Mumbai. He set up a factory at Digwal village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District, which would manufacture Pharmaceuticals Drugs. The petitioner No.1 was the occupier of the factory and the petitioner No.2 was the Manager of the factory as per the provisions of The Factories Act, 1948.
2.1. The respondent No.1, the Assistant Inspector of Factories filed a complaint before the Magistrate stating that on 5-11-2015 at about 5:00 PM, Sri P. Krishna while monitoring the cleaning of HDPE drums by a contract worker and when the latter was wiping the drums with a cloth soaked in Methanol, it caught fire and during the process, one piece of burnt cloth fell in the filtration room resulting in flash fire in filtration room and cleaning area. In the fire accident, Sri P. Krishna received severe burn injuries over his body. He was rendered first aid in the OHC and was shifted to hospital for further treatment. Sri. P Krishna succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment in the hospital on 7-11-2015.
2.2 The factory was inspected by Y. Gangadhar Reddy, Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad (Rural) and G.Janakinath, Inspector of Factories, Sanga Reddy-I on 6-11-2015 and found that the petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules u/s 87, Rule 95 Schedule-XV (13) read with Section 41 and Rule 61-F(2) and Section 7A(2):-
a) Failed to provide suitable and adequate ventilation in the filtration room/work areas to dilute the excessive build-up of flammable materials.
b) Failed to maintain all the exhaust systems in working condition by way of preventive maintenance in the factory.
c) Failed to provide adequate training to the works regarding the emergency handling procedures/ escape practices to be followed in case of emergency.
and failed to prevent the unsafe practice of employing unqualified/ untrained/unskilled workers for carrying out hazardous operation/ processes and handling hazardous substances and acted in contravention of the above provisions and Rules mentioned and rendered themselves liable for punishment under Section 92 of The Factories Act 1948.
2.3. The Inspector of Factories had accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioners vide proceedings No.A/121/2016 dated 3-2-2016 and prayed the court to issue directions to the petitioners under Section 102 of the Act to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules within a stipulated time specified by the Court.
2.4. The same was taken cognizance by the court.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. T. Niranjan Reddy for the petitioners and Ms. T. Mounika, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the contract worker Mr. Venkatesh and Late Sri P. Krishna (company employee). Mr. Venkatesh was cleaning the HDPE drums under the supervision of Late Sri P. Krishna not at the designated cleaning area i.e the washing room which was further down the corridor away from the filtration room. Late Sri P. Krishna did not prevent Mr. Venkatesh nor instructed him to clean the HDPE drums in designated washing room. Further, late Sri P. Krishna was not wearing the personal protection equipment/gear which was provided by the company while undertaking the activity of supervising the cleaning of HDPE drums nor did he ensure that Mr. Venkatesh wore the personal protection equipment/gear provided by the company. If the workers had worn the same at the time of the incident, they would have escaped from the accidental fire. The unfortunate incident happened on account of the gross negligence of the workers in cleaning the HDPE drums at a non-designated area and not wearing the personal protection equipment/gear.
4.1. He further submitted that there was an exhaust fan in the filtration room which would provide adequate ventilation. The respondents did not specifically state as to how many exhaust systems they had inspected and how many of them were not in working condition. Similarly, the respondents had not substantiated their allegation that the petitioner failed to provide adequate training to the workers regarding the emergency handling procedures. The respondents did not examine any workers at the factory to state as to who were the unqualified/ untrained/unskilled workers engaged in the hazardous operations and handling with hazardous substances in the factory.
4.2. The company paid an amount of Rs.41,12,100/- as compensation to the members of the family of Late Sri. P. Krishna. On the complaint given by the brother of the deceased on 6-11-2015, the Kohir Police registered Crime No.147 of 2015 under Section 337 and 304A of IPC. The police after completing the investigation filed the final report requesting the II Class Executive Magistrate, Tahsildar, Kohir Mandal requesting him to close the case on the ground that the death of Sri. P. Krishna was due to accidental fire. Accordingly, the II Class Executive Magistrate, Tahsildar, Kohir Mandal closed the case.
4.3. He further contended that the sanction order given by respondent No.2 referred one Pedra Jesus Echegaray Larrea as ‘Occupier’ of the factory and one Mr. Ajay Sah as the ‘Manager’ of the factory. No sanction was accorded to respondent No.1 to initiate prosecution against the petitioners. The cognizance order of the Magistrate also would disclose non application of mind, as such the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners was illegal and liable to be quashed and prayed to allow the petition.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor admitted that Police filed final report that the death of Sri. P. Krishna was due to accidental fire but contended that the petitioners had not taken proper precautions as such liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of Factories Act and Rules and prayed to dismiss the petition.
Perused the record. The record would disclose that basing on the complaint given by the brother of the deceased on 6-11-2015, police of PS Kohir registered a case vide Crime No.147 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC and after completing the investigation and on examining the Inspector of Factories Medak Distrct, who furnished opinion that the incident occurred accidentally and there was no defect of the management, filed a final report after obtaining permission from the Sub Divisional Police Officer Sanga Reddy. The said report was accepted by the II Class Executive Magistrate and further proceedings were closed.
6.1. But the same Inspector of Factories accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioners under the Factories Act vide proceedings no A/121/2016 dated 3-2-2016 which was contradictory to the statement given to the police. The sanction order also would not disclose application of mind by the Inspector of Factories. In the first para of the order, the names of the petitioners were mentioned as ‘occupier’ and the ‘manager’ of the factory but in the second para, sanction was given to prosecute Sri Pedra Jesus Echegaray Larrea as ‘Occupier’ of the factory and one Mr. Ajay Sah as the ‘Manager’ of the factory. The sanction order also would disclose that the respondents had made sweeping allegations against the petitioners without giving specific particulars as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The material particulars of the alleged violations/contraventions or offences committed by the petitioners are also not provided by the respondents.
6.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 wherein it was held that:
“18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See also: Jaswant Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 762 = AIR 1958 SC 12; State of Bihar & Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma, 1991 Cr.L.J. 1438 (SC)).”
6.3. The Executive Magistrate also appeared to have taken cognizance of the case in a mechanical way without application of mind. On one hand he accepted the final report filed by the police that there was no negligence on the part of the management in the death of the deceased and on the other hand had taken cognizance to prosecute the petitioners for their failure to take safety measures under the Factories Act and issued summons to the petitioners. No reasoned order was passed by him while taking cognizance particularly when the private complaint was filed by the Public servant and there was no sworn statement or affidavit accompanying it.
6.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Others (2021) SCC OnLine SC 806 wherein it was held that:
“As observed by this Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and even thereafter in catena of decisions, summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. In paragraph 28 in Pepsi Foods Limited (supra), it is observed and held as under:
“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
6.5. Considering the rationale of the above cases and the non application of mind in granting sanction by the Inspector of Factories u/s 105 of Factories Act 1948 and Rules made there under and not disclosing the material particulars as to the defects and violations made by the occupier and the non application of mind by the Magistrate in taking cognizance and the police filing the final report basing on the statement of the Inspector of Factory that there was no negligence on the part of the management which was accepted by the court and the information given by the Chief Manager of the factory to the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories dated 7-6-2016 about payment of Rs.41,12,100/- towards terminal benefits including an amount of Rs.15.00 Lakhs as management contribution (exgratia) in addition to the statutory benefits of funeral expenses, provident fund amount and monthly pension to the wife of the deceased P. Krishna, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as continuation of the same was nothing but an abuse of process of law.
In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in STC No.12 of 2020 (old No.28 of 2016) on the file of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.