Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the occupier of M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings in C.C.No.757/2017 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara. The proceedings arose from an accident on 11-04-2017, where a workman suffered leg injury while entering a forklift movement area. The company immediately provided medical aid and informed the respondent, the Deputy Director of Factories, in Form 17 under the Factories Act. After inspections and a show cause notice, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for contravention of Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act, alleging safety lapses. The petitioner challenged the complaint, arguing that the company was not arrayed as an accused, and that no order was passed on the reply to the show cause notice, depriving the petitioner of the statutory right of appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act. The respondent contended that the Factories Act does not require an order before prosecution, and that the company need not be made a party. The High Court framed two issues: (i) whether non-arraigning of the company vitiates the proceedings, and (ii) whether an order under Section 7A(2)(c) is necessary before filing a criminal complaint. The court reserved judgment on 09-11-2021 and delivered its order on 06-12-2021, but the available extract does not contain the final decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Non-Joinder of Company - Maintainability of Complaint - Factories Act, 1948, Sections 7A(2)(c) and 107 - The court examined whether failure to array the company as an accused would vitiate the criminal complaint against the occupier. The matter was under consideration with reference to Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, AIR 2012 SC 2795. (Paras 8-9)
B) Factories Act - Right of Appeal - Order on Show Cause Notice - Factories Act, 1948, Sections 7A(2)(c) and 107 - The court examined whether the Deputy Director of Factories was required to pass an order on the reply to the show cause notice before filing a complaint, to enable the occupier to avail the statutory appeal under Section 107. This issue was not decided in the given extract. (Paras 8)
Issue of Consideration
The main questions of law considered were (i) whether non-arraigning of the company as an accused would vitiate the criminal proceedings, and (ii) whether an order must be passed under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act on the reply to show cause notice to enable an appeal under Section 107 before registration of criminal case.
Law Points
- Non-arraignment of company may vitiate criminal complaint
- Show cause notice is not an order under Section 7A(2)(c) Factories Act
- Right of appeal under Section 107 Factories Act arises only upon passing of an order
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (12) 15
Writ Petition No.11451 of 2018 (GM-RES)
S.N.Murthy (Senior Advocate), Somashekar (Advocate) for petitioner; Namitha Mahesh B.G., Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Mr. Yashihirao Horinouchi
The Deputy Director of Factories, Department of Factories and Boilers, Division-4, Bengaluru
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal complaint filed against the occupier of a factory under the Factories Act for violation of safety provisions resulting in injury to a workman.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.757/2017 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the complaint was not maintainable in the absence of the company as an accused, and that no order was passed on the reply to the show cause notice, thereby depriving the right of appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act.
Issues
Whether non-arraigning of the Company as an accused would vitiate the proceedings?
Whether an order is required to be passed under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act, on the reply submitted to the show cause notice to enable the occupier to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act before registration of the criminal case?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the complaint is vitiated for non-joinder of the company as a necessary party.
Petitioner argued that failure to pass an order on the reply to the show cause notice deprived the occupier of the statutory right of appeal under Section 107.
Petitioner relied on Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, and other High Court decisions on similar principles.
Respondent contended that the Factories Act does not mandate passing an order before filing a complaint, and the show cause notice is only a procedural step.
Respondent argued that the company is not required to be made a party under the Factories Act, relying on J.K. Industries v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers.
Judgment Excerpts
On 11-04-2017 one Mr. Theertha Prasad, Forklift operator while removing the module using forklift, a workman by name Mr. Santhosh Patgar, who was a tow truck operator entered into forklift movement area and when reversing of the forklift was in progress meets with an accident which resulted in an injury of his left leg.
The respondent in the complaint has narrated that the injured workman entered into forklift area to pick up gloves.
The Company is not arrayed as an accused in the impugned proceedings.
The points that would arise for my consideration are twofold :– (i) Whether non-arraigning of the Company as an accused would vitiate the proceedings? (ii) Whether an order is required to be passed under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act, on the reply submitted to the show cause notice to enable the occupier to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act before registration of the criminal case?
Procedural History
The petitioner, occupier of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, informed the respondent about an accident on 11-04-2017. Respondent inspected on 12-04-2017 and 22-06-2017, issued show cause notice on 23-06-2017, and received a reply on 11-08-2017. Without passing an order, respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for contravention of Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act, registered as C.C.No.757/2017. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking quashing. The matter was heard and reserved for orders on 09-11-2021, with judgment pronounced on 06-12-2021.
Acts & Sections
- Factories Act, 1948: 7A(2)(c), 107
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 200, 482
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
