2022 (6) TMI 1448 - HC - Indian Laws

Applicability of Factories Act 1948 or Indian Penal Code - occupier and manager or not - serious injury while operating the machinery - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the Revisional Court has failed to appreciate the submissions advanced by the petitioners and has chosen to not address the admissibility of the evidence available along with the final report and has rather proceeded on a presumption that all such aspects shall be examined at the stage of trial. Forcing a person to undergo criminal prosecution without noticing as to whether any criminal case is made out against a person on the strength of the material and evidence collected by the prosecution itself is a perpetuation of injustice. A Court of law cannot refuse to examine the existence of prima facie evidence and as to whether such evidence would support the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner or not on a pretext that such issue is to be examined at the stage of trial. A plea of defence cannot be looked into by the Revisional Court especially when such plea is sought to be established by any other evidence or document which is yet to be proved in accordance with law. The said aspect however does not apply to the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and sought to be relied upon by the agency for proving its case against an accused. The Revisional Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and its admissibility in law along with necessary ingredients required for prosecuting a person for commission of the offence in question. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of charges framed under Section 304-A IPC.
2. Applicability of the Factories Act, 1948.
3. Petitioners' involvement and liability.
4. Examination of evidence and material.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of charges framed under Section 304-A IPC:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 16.07.2019 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, framing charges under Section 304-A IPC, and the subsequent dismissal of their revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court examined the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, which include causing death by a rash or negligent act. It was emphasized that criminal negligence must be gross and culpable, showing a disregard for life and safety. The court concluded that there was no prima facie evidence to establish that the petitioners were in charge of the factory operations or that their actions directly caused the accident. Consequently, the charges under Section 304-A IPC were set aside.

2. Applicability of the Factories Act, 1948:
The petitioners argued that the incident should be governed by the Factories Act, 1948, a special statute, rather than the IPC. The court noted that the Factories Act aims to regulate labor conditions and safety in factories but does not prohibit the operation of other statutes. It was held that the Factories Act does not override the IPC, and an act punishable under both statutes can lead to prosecution under either. The court referred to Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, which allows prosecution under multiple enactments for the same act, provided there is no double punishment. The court found no inconsistency between Section 304-A IPC and the Factories Act, affirming the applicability of the IPC.

3. Petitioners' involvement and liability:
The petitioners contended they were not involved in the factory operations, which was a sole proprietorship owned by their father. The court examined the evidence and found no material to prove that the petitioners were in charge of the factory or responsible for the machinery. The Revisional Court's observation that the petitioners' role was a debatable issue was deemed insufficient. The court emphasized that liability must be real and actual, not inferred from familial relationships. The absence of evidence establishing the petitioners' responsibility led to their discharge from the charges.

4. Examination of evidence and material:
The court scrutinized the evidence presented, including the final report and witness testimonies. It was noted that there was no expert testimony or material proving that the machinery was outdated or that the accident was caused by the petitioners' negligence. The court highlighted that criminal liability cannot be based on mere suspicion or the occurrence of an incident. The prosecution failed to establish the petitioners' role in the factory operations or their negligence leading to the accident. The court concluded that forcing the petitioners to undergo a trial without prima facie evidence would be unjust.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and discharging the petitioners from the charges under Section 304-A IPC. The decision emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish criminal liability and the proper application of legal principles in framing charges.