Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the Managing Director and Vice President of M/s Kennametal India Ltd., were accused nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 1350/2013 pending before the VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The respondent, the Joint Director of Factories (Medical), Bangalore, filed a complaint against them under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, alleging violations of the Act. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint and the order issuing process. The sole legal issue was whether the complaint was maintainable without prior sanction under Section 108 of the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioners argued that Section 108 mandates that no prosecution under the Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the Inspector, and since the complaint was filed by the Joint Director without such sanction, it was invalid. The respondent did not appear or contest. The court, relying on the plain language of Section 108, held that the requirement of previous sanction is mandatory and the absence thereof renders the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the court quashed the complaint and the order issuing process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Lack of Sanction - Section 108 of Factories Act, 1948 - The complaint filed by the Joint Director of Factories under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 without obtaining prior sanction under Section 108 of the Act is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed. Held that the requirement of sanction under Section 108 is mandatory and the absence thereof vitiates the prosecution. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the Joint Director of Factories under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 without prior sanction under Section 108 of the said Act is maintainable?
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the complaint dated 23.01.2013 filed by the respondent and the order dated 23.01.2013 directing issuance of summons in C.C. No. 1350/2013 pending on the file of the VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 108 of Factories Act
- 1948 is mandatory before filing complaint
- Complaint without sanction is not maintainable
- Quashing of criminal proceedings for lack of sanction
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (06) 3
W.P.Nos.13428-13429/2014 (GM-RES)
Sri Bhagya Chandra Rao and Sri D. Sarathy
State of Karnataka, by Joint Director of Factories (Medical), Bangalore
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal complaint and process issued under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the complaint dated 23.01.2013 filed by the respondent and the order dated 23.01.2013 directing issuance of summons for offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 in C.C. No. 1350/2013.
Filing Reason
The complaint was filed by the Joint Director of Factories without prior sanction under Section 108 of the Factories Act, 1948, which is mandatory.
Issues
Whether the complaint filed under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 without prior sanction under Section 108 of the said Act is maintainable?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that Section 108 of the Factories Act, 1948 mandates that no prosecution under the Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the Inspector. Since the complaint was filed by the Joint Director of Factories without such sanction, it is not maintainable and liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of previous sanction under Section 108 of the Factories Act, 1948 is mandatory. A complaint filed under Section 92 of the Act without such sanction is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 108 of the Factories Act, 1948 reads as under: 'No prosecution under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the Inspector.'
In the present case, the complaint is filed by the Joint Director of Factories (Medical), Bangalore, who is not an Inspector appointed under Section 8(1) of the Factories Act. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1350/2013 before the VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners then filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint and the order issuing process.
Acts & Sections
- Factories Act, 1948: Section 92, Section 108
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 482
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
