S.B. Mhase, J.
1. Heard Shri Chandole, learned counsel for the applicants in all the above mentioned five applications and Shri V.B. Ghatge, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State in all the five applications.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The order under challenge is dated June 11, 1998 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision Application No. 209 of 1997 to Criminal Revision Application No. 213 of 1997 wherein the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded issuing process on June 9, 1997 was challenged. The brief facts are as follows:
4. The Criminal Case Nos. 1024 of 1997 to 1028 of 1997 have been filed on behalf of the State by Shri A.R. Ashtaputre, Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health alleging that the respondents have committed offence under Section 66 of the Factories Act punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. On presentation of the said complaints, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded, issued process on June 9, 1997 and that order of issuance of process was challenged by filing Criminal Revision Nos. 209 of 1997 to 213 of 1997. The said revision applications have been dismissed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on June 11, 1998 and therefore the present applications have been tiled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. On perusal of the judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, it is revealed that when the matter was argued before the Sessions Judge, no submissions of law were raised by the revision petitioners, and therefore, the Sessions Judge has dismissed the said revision applications holding that nothing has been pointed out as to how the order passed by the trial Court is illegal. In fact in the absence of raising any law point before the Sessions Judge, it was not proper on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court, raising a fresh point for the first time before this Court. However, looking to the fact that the point has been raised which is purely a point of law, I am considering the same.
6. Mr. Chandole, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the complaint filed by Mr. Ashtaputre, Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Nanded is not competent. He invited my attention to Section 105 of the Factories Act and submitted that Court can take cognizance of the offences under the Factories Act only if the complaint is filed by the Inspector or by any other person with the sanction of the Inspector. He submitted that in the present case, Mr. Ashtaputre is not the Inspector, and therefore, the complaint is not competent. He further submits that there is no sanction given in favour of Shri Ashtaputre by the Inspector, and therefore, the complaint is not competent. For the said purpose, he invited my attention to Section 8 of the Factories Act, and further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 8(v) of the Act the District Magistrate is the Inspector for the District and that it is only the District Magistrate, who can file the complaint.
7. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent-State has filed affidavit of Shri Ashtaputre. Shri Ashtaputre has categorically stated in the affidavit that he is the Inspector appointed under Section 8 of the Factories Act, and therefore, he himself is empowered to file the complaint. He further submitted that by the Government resolution dated December 11, 1990, designation of the Factories Inspector has been changed and it is redesignated as Assistant Director of Industrial Safety and Health and the said designation has been mentioned by him. However, the complaint filed by him is competent.
8. On perusal of Section 8 of the Factories Act, it will reveal that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as possess the prescribed qualification to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Act and may assign to them such local limits as it may think fit. It would further reveal from Sub-section (2) of Section 8 that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazelle, appoint any person to be a Chief Inspector who shall, in addition to the powers conferred on a Chief Inspector under this Act exercise the powers of an Inspector throughout the State. Sub-section (4) provides that every District Magistrate shall be an Inspector for the District. This will point out that apart from the District Magistrates who have been designated as Inspectors under this Act, the Slate Government is entitled to appoint by notification in the official gazette such persons as possess the prescribed qualification as Inspectors for the purposes of this Act, and therefore, those persons will also be Inspectors under this Act. Apart from the persons who are appointed as Inspectors by Government Notification, a Chief Inspector who is appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 is also empowered to exercise the power of the inspector under the Act, throughout the State. Thus on analysis, it will be seen that the inspectors under this Act come from three sources namely Sub-section (1) Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (4) of Section 8 and all those Inspectors are. entitled to file prosecution for which cognizance can be taken under Section 105 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. So far as the present matter is concerned, .Mr. Ashtaputre has filed the affidavit that he is a person appointed under Section 8 of the Factories Act by notification in the Official Gazette. In view of that position, he is a constituted Inspector under the Act, and therefore, he is competent to file the complaint. Only because of the Government Resolution dated December 11, 1990 his post has been redesignated as Assistant Director of Safety and Health however, that does not mean that initial powers which are vested in him by Section 8of the Factories Act by the earlier notificationhave been taken away by the State Governmentand his post as Inspector under the Actcontinues.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no substance in the above mentioned Criminal Applications. Therefore, alt the five Criminal Applications are hereby dismissed. Rule discharged.