JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 24.2.2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in F.A. case No. 251/2001 whereby the Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 96(A) of the Factories Act and also the entire criminal proceeding against them.
2. The petitioners were persecuted for violation of the provisions of the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories alleging violation of the provisions of the Factories Act and the rules made thereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that in the license issued by the Opposite Parties, the name of Sri S.C. Roy has been shown as occupier and not the petitioners and, therefore, the instant criminal prosecution against the petitioners other than the occupiers is vitiated in law.
4. From perusal of the complaint petition it appears that there is specific allegation that Sri S.C. Roy is a low paid employee of the Management and he is performing his duty as Munshi. As a matter of fact, the petitioners are in ultimate control over the affairs of the factory and they have committed mischief by not complying the provisions of the Act and the rules made therein. From perusal of the records it further appears that the impugned order of cognizance dated 24.2.2001, was challenged by the petitioners by filing revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which was dismissed on 27.11.2001. The District Judge, in his order, has referred the prosecution report wherein it was mentioned that petitioner No. 2 Smt. Vimla Devi Bansal has been recorded as one of the occupiers of the factory and petitioner No. 2 is the person who was practically in the ultimate control over the affairs of the factory.
5. Be that as it may, this Court is not supposed to enter into the merits of the contention of the petitioners as to whether they are occupier within the meaning of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The petitioners may raise this point at the time of framing of charge. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance against the petitioners. The impugned order needs no interference. This application is dismissed.