CRL OP/25006/2000 of Vs on 3 December 2000

:ORDER

What is challenged herein is the criminal proceedings pending inC.C.No.9844 of 2000 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai 8.

2. The respondent herein filed a complaint under The Factories Act 1948 and The Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950 against the petitioner statingthat the petitioner's factory was inspected by the Deputy Chief Inspector ofFactories, II Division, Chennai 6 on 18.8.2000 at 10.30 A.M., and he foundthat the said factory failed to comply with the provisions of the said Act andRules thereunder; that no documents for having obtained the storage approvalfrom appropriate authorities have been produced in respect of the storage at the said premises, and thus, the petitioner has contravened S.38(3) read withRule 61(7) and S.45 read with Rule 64(3).

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record.4. Arguing for the petitioner the learned Counsel would submit thatthe petitioner company is strictly adhering to the Factories Act and itsRules, and thus, no contravention can be alleged against them; that it ispertinent to note that the diesel or flammable liquid are stored inunderground storage tanks as contemplated under Petroleum Rules 1976, andnecessary licence has also been obtained; that it has to be noted that thecomplaint does not reveal any specific allegation against the petitioner; thatthe respondent has simply reproduced the sections and rules in the saidcomplaint; that only after full satisfaction that prima facie case has beenmade out in the complaint, the trial court can take cognizance of the offence;that the lower court has issued summons to the petitioner without looking intothe aspects of the matter; that in the absence of any specific allegationagainst the petitioner, it is highly impossible for them to defend the same;that making a person to defend ambiguous charges is violative of Articles 14and 21 of The Constitution of India; that the trial court is not justified inissuing summons to the petitioner, when the impugned complaint itself isunsustainable in law, and under the circumstances, the complaint has got to bequashed.

4. Countering to the above contentions of the petitioner's side, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would urge that what are all therequisites expected by law have been provided in the complaint; that it is acase where the petitioner has clearly violated the provisions of The FactoriesAct, 1948 and Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950; that the lower court wasperfectly correct in taking cognizance of the offence and in issuing summonsto the petitioner; that the present petition is devoid of merits, and the sameis liable to be dismissed.

5. After hearing both sides and after careful scrutiny of the available materials, the court is of the view that it is a fit case to quashthe impugned complaint.

6. At the outset, it has to be necessarily pointed out that though it

has been mentioned in the complaint what is placed in the hands of the Court,that there has been a violation of S.38(3) read with Rule 61(7) and S.45 readwith Rule 64(3), the court is able to see the reproduction of those Sectionsand Rules. A perusal of the impugned complaint would show that there is nospecific allegations made against the petitioner, and in the absence of thesame, the petitioner could not defend the case. It is significant to notethat the impugned complaint does not reflect how the Sections and Rulesthereunder are violated by the petitioner and what is exactly the act done bythem. In the instant case, the necessary requisites expected by law, areabsent, and hence, it cannot be stated that a prima facie case has been madeout in the complaint.

7. The argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutorthat a qualified Medical Practitioner in charge of the Ambulance Room was notpresent during all the working days of the factory, and the same has led therespondent to file a complaint against the petitioner is neither convincingnor acceptable. From the materials on hand, it would be abundantly clear thatthough a complaint was put forth before the court below, it does not either disclose the acts done by the petitioner leading to the violation, or give anopportunity to the petitioner to defend the case. Under such circumstances,the court is of the view that the trial court was not justified in taking the complaint on file and hence, without any hesitation whatsoever, theimpugned complaint has to be quashed.8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.9844/2000 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, isquashed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.

Index: YesInternet: Yes22-8-2002To:1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore,Chennai 8.2. The Inspector of Factories III Circle,Chennai 8.3. The Public Prosecutor, Chennai.

nsv