High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.M.S.A Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.S.A Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
-;-

EN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DA'I'ED THIS THE am my 0? JUM: 
BEFORE _ '  '

THE H€}N'BLE MR.JUS'I"ICE SL§BH§.$¥i_:§,VA:§§:1  3

CRIEHHAL PET1T:onr'.i;o;§g.0;,3g:2bG9 ' *    '  
BETWEEN:      ' ~ "

SRE.M.S.A KUMAR  
MANAGENG DIRECTOR  

M/S aw NATURAL PRO_DUCT'S_LTI;~._ 

VAZHA.KULAM . '   '  _

MARAMPILLY POST . . ._   ;  .+ 

ALUVA ~ 68310'?  V  t   EETITIONER

(By sm.JA¥Av:Tr2$L-.RA£j, ghv.  "
CRESTLAW 4PAm;;3zE:_i~2s,' .A£)'§JS) 

é.IF_I_3. :

STATE cm I_<;;ARN-A'PAI<{A   -- -

REP BY 'A.sss1sJ:*ANT:.13.1RE:s:f:*;'.§2 0:2' F'AC'1"'ORiES
TUMKLJR §Z)..EVES£0'E'~I {AN §NS§>§::£:*§'o§< m3P<::s1m'ED
UNDER SEC'"iT}€)'?J 8(1) iC?F"FHE'

F'AC1'i'{;}5RE£3S ACT,' 1948 '

" - ,s*1*.%;:r%;:2§fffs $<:Ho"CsL....,re_-..c)As, <;}ANDHiNAGflsR
 V 'im,m;UR 9 5723102  RE"iS?ONDE§N'1'

 ~.g:é;g,T:_T-,é:f;.go§f;3j$:;'§i¢é;:%1$tA, HCGP}

 C§RL.P FILED U[S..482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVGCKTE

 P'E3'I'§TiONER PRAYING THAT THES PEQPFBLE CQURT

 "Is/14:":Y_ SE ?LEASE¥3 TC} SET' ASIDE THE ORDER DATES 33.5.2088

 PASSED BY TEE {SJ IJRDN) ANY} JMFQ, 'TiPT'UR IN Ci: NC}.
"  _ 4132/2008 ANI} QUEKSH THE COMPLAINT.

THIS PE"¥'E'"§'I€}N C€}1it§£NG QN FUR AQMISSIGE TIFHS DAEC

" '§'HE COURT' MASH: THE FOLLOWENG:



'}

L-

ORDER

Petitimzler has sought for q_uash;Eng of the {3r:’X:€::~:di11gs in

C’L.{1_No.4-1A2/ 2098 011 ‘(ha fiie 0fJ.M.F’.C., ‘T’ip£1.13;*.

2. iflampiaim; is under the p1″DViSi€)I1S csf Seciion i?;1)’»T{)f the
Factozies ACE, 1948 (‘AC6 for Shfifl). It is alleged tizaé,’
empioyaes suffemd 1′::1ju1″y 011 account cf ‘2:;zVt”
C¢.’)I1\!f3§?0I’, which was in metion a11€i;vé§”?$;jjee<;vl "Qf 7.
8C3 RPM and due ':0 {£161 envelopmeni .:b§£3I1.;:L
af 1:116 aonveyor, his sufikzmd
when he scrrzamed f{x.:".._ 3C1e1}_::«,""' "the: screaming,

employees, who were wo:rk*_§;:1g" linxmeéiatfiiy azui

switchetifoflf __am1 fretci his énveiopcd right hand
by rotating Vt_h €:.<:o':1"z..r<2V§z"-:§ 2*.

i\?'oiic§11g"i"31$ Saki i:'::,<;:i:is::1t, that authozities an izmpectioxz

f:§1m_a:i' :§;§§'tA¢.:},1}5;«-..a::mpioyer has 1:101: previaiad atiequatfi aaiéty, and

pmvisivzms; of Smtiml 21 0f the Asst, in this

_ regazfii, c<.;'m§.ié.int has been fiied unézier 866333011 92 of the Rift.

V' * "8ri.Jayav:itta1 Rae E{‘i’1’c€_, sought for §,”ifi3{‘IIkiSSi{)I1 {ram the

4. ‘g
C §f’§,,,…-M
g./3, a

highrszr auihoxzéty to prosecutfi the §et,it:i<):{1er and in the said letter,

it is m€11§'ithem;fise _:Lh锑~:;:;::»mp1éiiu€ ii): its £:11i;ire’£y,

if it is read, it {ices moi: Iiifiiie’ (:1-“::t,f’za§ p1%i1%1c£.’féem7e Case §}uI1iShEibk”:
undel’ Sectien of that, fl}€I’€ is no
allegation as if: ‘Vi§I_ai§Qn.,,cff«’§;gcfion 21 of the Act. Even
the a]1c}sgé:iiTo1:siif,ma{:i§V’it1:”‘flit: they :10 not make out
such caésec, ” V

3. C»r::’fi;p}ai1:1§ “that, an acc3;s:ie11t GCCl1I’1″‘€d in the

‘V * atfliiert one’p’¢iE-an was injumé. The authozity cm noticing

–$1jxr:vv.V4éi:§v};Z§§y:ir has not cozziplied with the requirameniz of

pmviséisné ¢”if”j”t.’:t_$;’:3V Act, am} vieiation has resuitgd in an acc:id.ent.

j N€:ce5§$s3;:;§a safety measures; at not takfin. Ailztgafien in the

i c<:¥mp}.ai11Vi prfmzz fix-fie Shaw the afianae alleged. At this stage,

— used net look into fhfi evidence emé give fi:r<i§Zng. if the

" 't:'s:§m1c+1ai11t shewa that {he aflegations fie make prsirna fazie case,

x then it is 1101:. 2: Cass for quashizig. This C3331': has to he sélcsw in

é 1
. gg

2"'

qzzashing the proceadings. in tha cimumstancas, I dQ__11-:2: find

any gr01.md ta intetrfezce with the proceedings.

Act:-tjxrdixlgiy, the petition fails and sa1n¢.Vi3s'v_§:x7–is1t§§i§f3'3:c:_d. 3

am}

Iuags

KNM/"'