1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.245 of 2016 ---- 1. Dr. Jamshed J.
Irani 2. Amar Inder Singh Dhillon … Petitioners -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Inspector of Factories, Jamshedpur Circle-I, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ---- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. ---- ORDER
RESERVED ON1011.2017 PRONOUNCED ON1512.2017 In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings, initiated as against the petitioners in connection with C/2 Case No.2903 of 2001, including the order dated 15.05.2001, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby cognizance was taken for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act and summons were directed to be issued against the petitioners.
2. The case arises out of Factories Act. An accident had taken place in the factory of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (now M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.) for which the instant prosecution has been lodged citing the petitioner No.1 as the occupier.
3. The main ground of challenge in this quashing application is that petitioner, Dr. Jamshed J.
Irani, ceased to be the ‘Occupier’ of the factory on the date of the accident, as such cognizance could not have been taken and this petitioner should not have been directed to face trial.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of occurrence is 22.02.2001. An application for transfer of the licence was already filed before the appropriate authority on 23.09.2000, signed by one T. Mukherjee, Director of the Company. Since the Factory Licence was for a period of one year, term of which was coming to an end, the said T. Mukherjee, in the capacity of an ‘Occupier’ filed an application for renewal of the Factory Licence on 04.11.2000. All these applications were prior to the date of occurrence. He further submits that as the 2 Factory Licence was renewed with effect from a date prior to the date of accident, it will clearly suggest that the authorities had accepted T. Mukherjee as the ‘Occupier’ and that being so, it will be deemed that this petitioner is absolved of his liabilities as an ‘Occupier’ and he cannot be proceeded against.
5. The State submits that the amended licence bearing Registration No.2461/SBM was issued on 03.11.2001 under the provisions of Factories Act for the calendar year 2001. By referring to the said licence, which has been brought on record, it has been argued that though the licence was renewed giving it a continuity, but it has been specifically mentioned there that the ‘Occupier’ is Dr. Tridibesh Mukherjee (with effect from 19.07.2001), which is a date after the accident had taken place. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the authorities under the Factories Act have acknowledged ‘Dr. Tridibesh Mukheree’ as ‘Occupier’ with effect from 19.07.2001, which means the petitioner ‘Dr. Jamshed J.
Irani’ remained and was recognized as an ‘Occupier’ till 18.07.2001. Since the accident had taken place on 22.02.2001, the liability as an ‘Occupier’ will fall upon this petitioner only. Learned counsel submits that, the licence was issued on 02.11.2001 with the aforesaid endorsement, which was accepted, and now after 16 years it is not open for anyone to challenge the said recording.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The main ground taken by the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was not the ‘Occupier’ and thus, cannot be prosecuted under the Factories Act. The only issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner is whether the petitioner No.1 was the ‘Occupier’ on the date of accident or it is ‘Dr. T. Mukherjee’ who was the ‘Occupier’. The question to determine as to who is the ‘Occupier’ of a Factory is ordinarily a question of fact. In a jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot decide as to who is the ‘Occupier’ of the Factory on a particular date. On one hand, the Factory Licence clearly suggests that the Department had accepted ‘Dr. T. Mukherjee’ as an ‘Occupier’ with effect from 19.07.2001, whereas the counsel for the petitioner has referred to several documents, which have been filed by the Company for renewing the licence of the factory claiming ‘Dr. T. Mukherjee’ as the ‘Occupier’. Since a question of fact has been raised relying on documents by both the parties, these documents need to be proved before the Trial Court and upon 3 adjudicating on the basis of the exhibited documents a finding has to be arrived at as to who was the occupier. This can best be done at the stage of trial and not in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where cognizance of offence is under challenge. This complicated question of fact cannot be adjudicated in an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order taking cognizance.
7. After going through the complaint, I find that an accident had taken place in the factory of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. for which a criminal proceeding has been initiated under the Factories Act. As the records of the Department suggest that on the date of occurrence, this petitioner No.1 was the ‘Occupier’, rightly he was proceeded against. Further since an offence is made out from perusal of the complaint, cognizance was taken. There is no illegality in the said order of taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons to the petitioners.
8. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue as to who was the ‘Occupier’ on the date of occurrence, before the Trial Court with supporting evidence. I find no merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Before parting, I may mention that this complaint is of the year 2001 in which cognizance has been taken way back on 15.05.2001. Since the matter is pending for last 16 years, I direct the Trial Court to take up the trial of this case on priority basis. The trial should commence at the earliest, preferably within a month in a time bound manner without any unnecessary adjournments. Let a copy of the order be faxed to the Trial Court. ( Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03