Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
O
CRIMINAL APPEAL N . 1963 /2010
Shri Subir Bose …Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Factories,
represented by S. M. Paranjpe & Anr. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The appellant – Mr. Subir Bose, was the Managing Director of M/s.
Berger Paints India Ltd. (the ‘Company’ for short) and resident of
Kolkatta at the time of the offence..
2. On April 28, 2006 at about 11:20 hours fire had broken out at the
factory premises of the company located at IDC Kundaim, Goa.
There was no causality except that one Shri Tulsidas Dutta Palkar
– a worker, had sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital
and discharged after treatment on the same day.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
Date: 2019.09.30
15:43:53 IST
Reason:
1
th
3. On 28 June, 2006, Inspector of Factories, Altinho, Panaji, Goa
filed a private complaint in discharge of official duties under
Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (“Factories Act” for short)
against the appellant – Managing Director of the Company, as the
occupier, and Shri S.M. Lahiri – the Manager of the Company. The
allegations were that the company had been using the factory
premises situated at Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa
without proper licence/permission which was in contravention of
Goa Factories Rules, 1945. It was also alleged that the accused
has failed to take adequate measures to prevent explosion or
ignition of inflammable substances as required under Sections 37
and 38 of the Factories Act.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, who was the
Managing Director, we were not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order, which has affirmed the order taking cognizance
for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act as, prima
facie , it does appear that the factory premises situated at Kundaim
Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa was functioning without a
licence/permission. The contention of the appellant that the factory
premises was in the process of closure of its and operations would
be a factual assertion made by the defence. This would require to
2
be proved and established. However, on the question whether
adequate measures were taken to prevent explosion or ignition of
inflammable substance is concerned, learned counsel for the
appellant has referred to, with some merit, the closure report filed
by the Police in FIR No. 110 of 2006 under Sections 285 and 336
of the IPC registered against Shri S.M. Lahiri – Factory Manager,
Shri Jayanta Bhattacharya – the Production Manager, Shri Bikas
Pukait – the Shift-in-Charge, and Shri Tulsidas Datta Palkar – the
worker. Interestingly, Shri Tulsidas Datta Palkar was the person
who had sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital and
discharged on the same day after administering first aid. The
closure report was filed stating that it was an unfit case for filing of
charge sheet as criminal charges were not made out. The report
was based on the opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor and
was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ponda, who
is also the Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offence
under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The complaint refers to
violation of Sections 37 and 38 of the Factories Act, albeit without
giving specific particulars and details. Hence, to this extent, the
complaint is vague and does not disclose a specific violation.
3
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, has stated
that the appellant would plead guilty and bring the litigation to a
quietus by paying the maximum amount of fine that can be
imposed. The prayer made was that punishment of imprisonment
may not be imposed as the appellant is now more than 70 years of
age, and at that time the company had six factories and more than
eighty depots all over India. The appellant was at the relevant time
a permanent resident of Kolkatta. Relegating the appellant to the
trial Court would not serve any purpose and cause delay.
6. We are, in the peculiar facts of the present case, inclined to accept
the prayer noticing the fact that in the present case Shri Tulsidas
Datta Palkar – the worker, who was himself, as per the FIR, one of
the accused, had suffered minor injuries and was discharged from
the hospital on the same day. The occurrence relates to the year
2006, the present appellant is now over 70 years of age, and the
trial itself would take years before it is decided. In these
circumstances, in the interests of justice, we accept the appellant’s
prayer to accept his confession of guilt, and, accordingly, convict
him under Section 92 of the Factories Act with Fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- which should be deposited with the trial Court within
four weeks from the date of this Judgment. On failure to deposit
4
the Fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of eight weeks.
7. The order and directions given hereinabove would dispose of the
criminal proceedings against the appellant in Criminal Case No.
9/LAB/2006/B pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class
‘B’), Ponda, Goa. As this order is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, it is not to be treated as a precedent.
The interim Order dated 17.07.2009 passed by this Court
stands vacated.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
…..……...........................J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
..….……..........................J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi
September 24, 2019.
5