BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21/08/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6716 of 2007 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6717 and 6718 of 2007 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3 and 3 of 2007 G.Abiruban ... Petitioner in all petitions Vs The State rep. by its Inspector of Factories, III Division, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondent in all petitions Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in C.C.No.139, 140 and 141 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtur and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ^For Respondent ... Mr.P.Rajendran Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) :ORDER
These petitions have been filed to call for the records pertaining to the
complaint in C.C.No.139, 140 and 141 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtur and quash the same.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of
this criminal original petitions would run thus:
The Inspector of Factories launched complaints as against the petitioner
with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, who took it on file as
C.C.Nos.139, 140 and 141 of 2004. The grievance of the petitioner herein is
that the Inspector of Factories was not justified in adding proceeding as
against the petitioner as an accused, as the same Factory Inspector as against
Kodeeswaran, one other partner of the same firm who is designated occupier of
the factory, filed complaints which were taken on file as C.C.Nos.134, 135 and
136 of 2004. For the same type of violation the Manager of that Factory is
proceeded against under C.C.Nos.126 and 127 of 2004.
4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that as per the definition of
‘occupier’ as contained in Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, occupier means any
one of the partners of the factory concerned and not more than one or all the
partners could be arrayed as accused as occupiers. As such in this case this
point gains prominence which has to be decided.
5. In as much as complaints as against Kodeeswaran, one of the partner and
the Manager were lodged by the Inspector of Factories for the same violations
and now he has chosen to file these impugned complaints against the petitioner.
The matter requires deep scrutiny with reference to definition of occupier.
The terms occupier is extracted here under with the proviso for ready reference:
“2(n) “Occupier” of a factory means the person who has ultimate control
over the affairs of the factory.
(Provided that –
(i)in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, any one of the
individual partners or members thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier;
(Emphasis supplied)
(ii)in the case of a company, any one of the directors shall be deemed to be the
occupier;
…..
Further more in Form 2 as prescribed under Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories
Act, 1948, also it has been submitted that that Kodeeswaran is the occupier.
Hence it is a clear case of abuse the process of law in once again filing the
complaints as against the petitioner herein, in C.C.Nos.139, 140 and 141 of
2004, which are liable to be quashed.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that in
this case trial already started. Once it is found that such complaints have no
legs to stand there is no question of such illegal proceedings being allowed to
continue under some pretext.
7. Accordingly the proceedings in C.C.Nos.139, 140 and 141 of 2004 on the
file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur are quashed.
Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.
sj
To
1.The Inspector of Factories,
III Division, Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.