Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 852-855 of 2001
Special Leave Petition (civil) 1566-69 of 2000
PETITIONER:
S.M. DATTA.... APPELLANT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT &ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/2001
BENCH:
A.P.Misra, U.C.Banerjee
JUDGMENT:
BANERJEE,J.
Leave granted.
Since the decision of Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed [King
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed: [1944 (71) IA 203: AIR 1945 PC 18] and
till this day there is existing one salutory principle that in normal
circumstances, the law courts would not thwart any investigation and
criminal proceedings initiated must be allowed to have its own course under
the provisions of the Code. The powers of the police ought to stand
unfettered to investigate cases where they suspect or even have reasons to
suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and the First Information
Report (F.I.R.) discloses of such offence.. The Judicial Committee in the
decision of Nazir Ahmed (supra) observed:
"In their Lordship’s opinion, however, the more
serious aspect of the case is to be found in the
resultant interference by the court with the duties
of the police. Just as it is essential that every one
accused of a crime should have free access to a
court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if
found not guilty of the offence with which he is
charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the
judiciary should not interfere with the police in
matters which are within their province and into
which the law imposes on them the duty of
inquiry. In India, as has been shown, there is a
statutory right on the part of the police to
investigate the circumstances of an alleged
cognizable crime without requiring any authority
from the judicial authorities and it would, as their
Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it
should be held possible to interfere with those
statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the
judiciary and the police are complementary, not
overlapping, and the combination of individual
liberty with a due observance of law and order is
only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its
own function, always, of course, subject to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
right of the court to intervene in an appropriate
case when moved under Section 491 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the
nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the
present, however, the court’s functions begin when
a charge is preferred before it, and not until then."
It is paramount to note however that the observations of Lord Porter in
Nazir Ahmed stands qualified by inclusion of the following:
"No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still
more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police
would have no authority to undertake an investigation."
The qualified statement of the Judicial Committee however stands
noted in Sanchaita Investment (State of West Bengal and Others v. Swapan
Kumar Guha and Others : 1982 (1) SCC 561). Incidentally, Sanchaita
Investment and subsequent decisions including Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and Rajesh
Bajaj [Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999 Crl.L.J. 1833)] in
one tune stated that if an offence is disclosed the Court will not interfere
with an investigation and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to
have been committed: If however the materials do not disclose an offence,
no investigation should normally be permitted.
The approach of this Court and the law as laid down by the Judicial
Committee in Nazir Ahmad cannot but be termed to be in accordance with
the principles of justice. While liberty of an individual are "sacred and
sacrosanct" and it is a bounden obligation of the Court to protect them but
in the event of commission of a cognizable offence and an offence stand
disclosed in the First Information Report, interest of justice requires further
investigation by the Investigating Agency. Needless to record that
investigation of an offence is within the exclusive domain of the police
department and not the law courts. In the event of disclosure of an offence,
it is a duty incumbent to investigate into offence and bring the offender to
books in order to serve the cause of justice and it is only thereafter the
Investigating Officer submits the report to the Court with a prayer to take
cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Cr.P.Code and it is on
submission of the report that the duty of the police ends, subject however to
the provisions as contained in Section 173 (8) of the Code. There is thus a
clear and well defined area of operation and demarcated function in the field
of investigation of crimes and its subsequent adjudication. In this context.
reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of Bihar & Anr.
v. JAC Saldanha & Ors. [1980 (1) SCC 554].
While an offence if disclosed in the FIR ought not to be thwarted at
the initial stages, but in the event however, the materials do not disclose an
offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. It is in this context
this Court in Sanchaita Investment (supra) observed:
"In my opinion, the legal position is well settled.
The legal position appears to be that if an offence
is disclosed, the court will not normally interfere
with an investigation into the case and will permit
investigation into the offence alleged to be
completed; if, however, the materials do not
disclose an offence, no investigation should
normally be permitted. The observations of the
Judicial Committee and the observations of this
Court in the various decisions which I have earlier
quoted, make this position abundantly clear. The
propositions enunciated by the Judicial Committee
and this Court in the various decisions which I
have earlier noted, are based on sound principles
of justice. Once an offence is disclosed, an
investigation into the offence must necessarily
follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no
offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be
permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
any offence being disclosed, will result in
unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty
and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing.
The liberty and property of any individual are
sacred and sacrosanct and the court zealously
guards them and protects them. An investigation
is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary
materials for establishing and proving an offence
which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed,
a proper investigation in the interests of justice
becomes necessary to collect materials for
establishing the offence and for bringing the
offender to book. In the absence of a proper
investigation in a case where an offence is
disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping
from the consequences and the offender may go
unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice
and the society at large. Justice requires that a
person who commits an offence has to be brought
to book and must be punished for the same. If the
court interferes with the proper investigation in a
case where an offence has been disclosed, the
offence will go unpunished to the serious
detriment of the welfare of the society and the
cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of
this principle that the court normally does not
interfere with the investigation of a case where an
offence has been disclosed. The decisions on
which Mr. Chatterjee has relied are based on this
sound principle, and in all these cases an offence
had been disclosed. Relying on the well settled
and sound principle that the court should not
interfere with an investigation into an offence at
the stage of investigation and should allow the
investigation to be completed, this Court had made
the observations in the said decisions which I have
earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the sound
principles of justice. The decisions relied on by
Mr. Chatterjee, do not lay down as it cannot
possibly be laid down as a broad proposition of
law, that an investigation must necessarily be
permitted to continue and will not be prevented by
the court at the stage of investigation, even if no
offence is disclosed. While adverting to this
specific question as to whether an investigation
can go on even if no offence is disclosed, the
Judicial Committee in the case of King Emperor v.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [1944 (71) IA 203: AIR
1945 PC 18] and this Court in RP Kapur v. State of
Punjab, [1960 (3) SCR 388] Jehan Singh v. Delhi
Administration [1974 (3) SCR 794] and SN
Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari [1970 (3) SCR
946] have clearly laid down that no investigation
can be permitted and have made the observations
which I have earlier quoted and which were relied
on by Mr. Sen. As I have earlier observed this
proposition is not only based on sound logic but is
also based on fundamental principles of justice, as
a person against whom no offence is disclosed,
cannot be put to any harassment by the process of
investigation which is likely to put his personal
liberty and also property which are considered
sacred and sacrosanct into peril and jeopardy."
This Court in Sanchaita Investment has been thus rather candid to
record that it will be the duty of the court to interfere with any investigation
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary
harassment to an individual if the court on a consideration of relevant
materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed.
As noticed above, there is no contra note till date sounded by this
Court. In the event the FIR does not disclose an offence, question of
continuation of the investigation would not arise, since the same would be an
utter abuse of the process of court and a harassment, which is unknown to
law. In Rajesh Bajaj’s case (supra) this Court however, without a contra
note detailed the method of construing the document (First Information
Report) and stated in paragraph 9 of the report as below:
"9. It is not necessary that a complainant should
verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all
the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is
it necessary that the complainant should state in so
many words that the intention of the accused was
dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the
definition into different components of the offence
to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the
ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the
complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual
foundation for the offence has been laid in the
complaint the Court should not hasten to quash
criminal proceedings during investigation stage
merely on the premise that one or two ingredients
have not been stated with details. For quashing an
FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely
rare cases) the information in the complaint must
be so bereft of even the basic facts which are
absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR SCW
237) (supra) this Court laid down the premise on
which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The
following observations made in the aforesaid
decisions are a sound reminder (para 109 of AIR):
"We also give a note of caution to the effect
that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases; that the Court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according
to its whim or caprice."
We respectfully record our concurrence therewith. Criminal
proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In
the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be
an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the
averments in the FIR cannot possibly be gone into and the document shall
have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof.
It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude neither it is a
document which requires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same
should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence
broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating
to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. It is in this context however
one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be
any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the
initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The First
Information Report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a
perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law
courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since two
organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
ought not to tread over the other sphere.
Turning attention on to the factual aspect of the matter it appears that
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction has been taken recourse to for quashing the
complaint and the process issued in criminal case Nos. 193,194,195 and 196
of 1990 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Gandhidham. The original complaint stand identical excepting the name of
the worker and are filed by the Factories Inspector, Adipur on the basis of
his visit and inspection to the Factory of the company situated at Kandla,
Free Trade Zone, Gandhidham. The petitioner, invoking the revisionary
power of the courts, was admittedly the Vice Chairman of the company and
at the material time the ’occupier’ under the Factories Act, 1948. The
complaint as filed stand in an identical cyclostyled form of filling in the
blanks wherein it is alleged that at the time of visit on 17th October, 1989 at
6.00 p.m. a workman in Group (c) was found to be working after the
prescribed working hours in violation of Section 63 and as such the occupier
under the Factories Act has committed an offence within the meaning of
Section92 of the Act. It was stated in the complaint as below:
"1.the above-mentioned accused Hindustan Lever
Ltd. which is situated at Plot No.A/1-177, Sector
No.1, KFT, Gandhidham, and is a ..........factory
under section 2(m)(i) of the Factory Act, and
whose owner is Shri.......................
2. The factory was running when myself, the
complainant, had visited the Factory at 6.00 p.m.
of 17.10.1989.
On that day and time, among the adult workers one
worker named Shri Om Prakash Rajput was
working. The said worker was staying there in
production unit (Helper --for cutting).
3. His name was present in the adult workers
register kept in the Factory in the shape of Form
No.28 and in it his attendance for 17.10.89 was
marked with ’P’. The said worker was of Group
C.
4. During that time, the notice of working
hours of adult workers was shown in form No.14
in the Factory as mentioned hereunder and the
worker had to work accordingly.
5. In this way, the aforesaid accused has
violated the provisions of Section 63 of the Factory
Act, 1948 by allowing the said worker/ordering
him to work without putting note against his name
in the attendance register of the adult workers and
against the working hours shown in the Notice
Form No.14 displayed in the Factory. This is an
offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factory
Act, 1948.
6. Therefore, I, the complainant, Shri Y.M.
Mehta, do hereby humbly request that by issuing
process against the accused, necessary legal action
may be taken against him for the aforesaid offence.
......................................."
To appreciate however, the true purport of the submissions centering
round the disclosure of an offence in the complaint, a few of the provisions
of the Factories Act ought to be noticed:
Section 61.
(1) Notice of periods of work for adults - (1) There
shall be displayed and correctly maintained in
every factory in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section (2) of Section 108, a notice of periods
of work for adults, showing clearly for every day
the periods during which adult workers may be
required to work.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
(2) The period shown in the notice required by sub-
section (1) shall be fixed beforehand, in
accordance with the following provisions of this
section and shall be such that workers working for
those periods would not be working in
contravention of any of the provisions of Sections
51,52,53,54, [55,56 and 58]
(3) Where all the adult workers in a factory are
required to work during the same periods, the
manager of the factory shall fix those periods for
such workers generally.
(4) Where all the adult workers in a factory are not
required to work during the same periods, the
manager of the factory shall classify them into
groups according to the nature of their work
indicating the number of workers in each group.
(5) For each group which is not required to work on a
system of shifts, the manager of the factory shall
fix the periods during which the group may be
required to work.
(6) Where any group is required to work on a system
of shifts and the relays are not to be subject to pre-
determined periodical changes of shifts, the
manager of the factory shall fix the periods during
which each relay of the group may be required to
work.
(7) Where any group is to work on a system of shifts
and the relays are tobe subject to pre-determined
periodical changes of shifts, the manager of the
factory shall draw up a scheme of shifts
whereunder the periods during which any relay of
the group may be required to work and the relay
which will be working at any time of the day shall
be known for any day.
(8) The State Government may prescribe forms of the
notice required by sub-section (1) and the manner
in which it shall be maintained.
(9) In the case of a factory beginning work after the
commencement of this Act, a copy of the notice
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be sent in
duplicate to the Inspector before the day on which
work is begun in the factory.
(10) Any proposed change in the system of work in any
factory which will necessitate a change in the
notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
notified to the Inspector in duplicate before the
change is made, and except with the previous
sanction of the Inspector, no such change shall be
made until one week has elapsed since the last
change."
Whilst on the statutory provisions, Section 62 ought also to be noted
since it has its relevance in the contextual facts:
"62. Register of adult workers-(1) The manager of
every factory shall maintain a register of adult
workers to be available to the inspector at all times
during working hours, or when any work is being
carried on in the factory, showing-
(a) the name of each adult worker in the factory;
(b) the nature of his work;
(c) the group, if any, in which he is included;
(d) where his group works on shifts, the relay to
which he is allotted; and
(e) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
Provided that, if the Inspector is of opinion that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
any muster-roll or register maintained as a part of
the routine of a factory gives in respect of any or
all the workers in the factory the particulars
required under this section, he may, by order in
writing, direct that such muster-roll or register
shall to the corresponding extent be maintained in
place of, and be treated as, the register of adult
workers in that factory.
[(1-A) No adult worker shall be required or
allowed to work in any factory unless his name
and other particulars have been entered in the
register of adult workers.]
(2) The State Government may prescribe the
form of the register of adult workers, the manner in
which it shall be maintained and the period for
which it shall be preserved."
Since however the complaint itself records that the accused has
violated the provisions of Section 63, it would also be convenient to note the
contents of Section 63 of the Act. The said provisions read as below:
"63. Hours of work to correspond with notice
under Section 61 and register under Section 62- No
adult worker shall be required or allowed to work
in any factory otherwise than in accordance with
the notice of periods of work for adults displayed
in the factory and the entries made beforehand
against his name in the register of adult workers of
the factory."
Before however, adverting to the impact of the statutory provisions,
certain basic features about the Factories Act, 1948 ought to be noticed at
this juncture. The Act has been engrafted in the Statute Book as an Act to
consolidate and amend the law regulating the labour in factories. Needless
to record that the establishment of cotton mills in Bombay in 1851 and the
jute mill at Rishra in Bengal marked the beginning of factory system in India
and it is only thereafter that the factories grew steadily both in Bombay and
in Bengal but the conditions prevailing in these factories were inhuman both
as regards working hours, welfare measures and wages. Availability of
labour were plenty and as such became rather cheap and in order to eradicate
the same, a commission was appointed in 1875 to investigate the conditions
of labour in factories and on the basis of its recommendations, the first
Factories Bill 1880 was introduced in the legislation, subsequently however,
the Bill was adopted as an Act. No sooner however, the Act was passed,
agitation started afresh in Bombay and other places and on the basis of the
report of a committee, the Indian Factories (Amendment) Act of 1891 was
passed. The provisions of the amended Act was also inadequate and a
somewhat revised Bill was subsequently introduced in 1909 and the same
was passed as a Statute in 1911. Though the Factories Act 1911 was
amended from time to time but it could not meet the required growing
activities in the country specially after the Second World War by reason
wherefor, Factories Act 1948 was engrafted in the Statute Book where
emphasis had been on the welfare of the workers. Factory Inspectors have
been placed with very heavy responsibility on them and provisions have
been made in the statute empowering the State Governments to make and
frame rules for the purposes of meeting the local exigencies of situation.
The Act undoubtedly is thus a welfare legislation and cannot but be termed
to be a complete code in itself. The Act also provides for punishment for
violation of any of the provisions.
In the same vein, this Court in Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya (Pri) Ltd. v.
Union of India and another (AIR 1963 SC 1591) stated as below:
"9. The Factories Act, as the preamble recites, is an Act
to consolidate and amend the law regulating labour in
factories. The Act is enacted primarily with the object of
protecting workers employed in factories against
industrial and occupational hazards. For that purpose it
seeks to impose upon the owners or the occupiers certain
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
obligations to protect workers unwary as well as
negligent and to secure for them employment in
conditions conducive to their health and safety. The Act
requires that the workers should work in healthy and
sanitary conditions and for that purpose it provides that
precautions should be taken for the safety of workers and
prevention of accidents. Incidental provisions are made
for securing information necessary to ensure that the
objects are carried out and the State Governments are
empowered to appoint inspectors, to call for reports and
to inspect the prescribed registers with a view to maintain
effective supervision. The duty of the employer is to
secure the health and safety of workers and extends to
providing adequate plant, machinery and appliances,
supervision over workers, healthy and safe premises,
proper system of working and extends to giving
reasonable instructions. Detailed provisions are therefore
made in diverse chapters of the Act imposing obligations
upon the owners of the factories to maintain inspecting
staff and for maintenance of health, cleanliness,
prevention of overcrowding and provision for amenities
such as lighting, drinking water, etc. etc. Provisions are
also made for safety of workers and their welfare, such as
restrictions on working hours and on the employment of
young persons and females, and grant of annual leave
with wages."
The backdrop of legislation and the subsequent incorporation of the
Factories Act in the statute book as noticed hereinbefore in this judgment
has been adverted to by reason of a true reading of the provisions of the Act
of 1948, the underlying intent of the legislature to confer benefits on the
labour force of a factory cannot be doubted in any way whatsoever.
Appointment of Inspectors by the State Government in terms of the
provisions of State Rules (in the instant case Gujarat Factory Rules, 1963)
has been effected only for the purposes of giving effect to the beneficial
piece of legislation and as such both the rules and forms introduced
thereunder by the State Government and the provision of the statute shall
have to be read in consonance with the intent of the legislature and not de
hors the same.
Even on a cursory look to Section 62 of the Factories Act, the
requirement to maintain a register of adult workers to be available cannot be
doubted in any way. Sub-section 2 of Section 62 is an authorisation for the
State Government to prescribe the form of the register of adult workers and
the manner in which it shall be maintained. The Gujarat Factories Rules,
1963 has been framed to suit the conditions in terms of the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948. Rule 87 of the said Rules prescribes that notice of
period of work for adult workers shall be in Form No.14 which in turn
prescribes different periods of work for adult workers. Form 28 provides the
muster roll as prescribed in Rule 110 of the Gujarat Rules. Rule 110
provides as below:
"110 Muster-roll-(1) The manager of every factory shall
maintain a muster-roll of all the workers employed in the
factory in Form No.28 showing (a) the name of each worker,
(b) the nature of his work and (c) the daily attendance of the
worker.
(2) The muster-roll shall be written up afresh each
month and shall be preserved for a period of 3 years from the
date of last entry in it:
Provided that if the daily attendance is noted in respect of
Adult and Child Workers in the Registers of Workers in Forms
Nos. 15 and 17 respectively, or the particulars required under
sub-rule (1) are noted in any other register, and such registers
are preserved for a period of 3 years from the date of last entry
in them, a separate muster-roll required under sub-rule (1) need
not be maintained."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
Turning attention on to the complaint, it is seen that Shri Omprakash
Rajput was found present in the list of adult workers register kept in the
factory in the Form No.28 wherein the attendance of shri Omprakash Rajput
appears. Thus, requirement of maintenance of muster-roll register stands
complied. There is also a specific mention that the worker was of Group C.
On an analysis of the complaint it thus appears that due compliance as
regards Form No.28 is available on record but Form No.14 as displayed in
the factory premises does not contain the aforesaid name of Shri Omprakash
Rajput as regards the working hours. Admittedly Shri Omprakash Rajput
was in terms of the averments of the complaint working during the visit of
the inspector. Let us now thus have a close look at Form No.14 which is
supposed to be complied with by non-compliance rather than compliance.
Form No.14 prescribes the notice of period of works for adult workers with
details of male and female employees, description of groups, period of work
having due record to the working days and partial working days along,
however, with the name of the factory, place where the same is located and
the district. Annexure to the complaint records the working hours as
between 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with usual break in terms of the requirement
together with a specific mention of an entry at 4.40 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. as over
time - admittedly thus during the visit of the inspector the members of the
staff were working on overtime. The complaint records violation of Section
63 and which in turn envisages compliance with section 61 and section 62:
Whereas section 62 cannot but be mentioned to be the muster-roll: Section
61 envisages a definite notice which is required to be displayed and
maintained correctly in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of
Section 108, depicting clearly for every day the periods during which adult
workers may be required to work. Sub-section 2 of section 61 specifically
records that the period shown in the notice shall be fixed before hand in
accordance with the provisions of section 61 so as not to permit workers
working in contravention of any of the provisions of sections 51 to 56 and
58. Significantly sub-section 4 of Section 61 requires a factory Manager to
classify the employees in groups according to the nature of their work and
indicating the number of workers in each group. Admittedly Shri
Omprakash Rajput and the three other employees all belong to group C and
as appears on the face of the complaint, as lodged. The mandate of the
statute ought to be interpreted in a manner to give efficacy to the legislative
intent. The Factories Act, 1948 cannot but be ascribed to be a beneficial
piece of legislation and the requirement of Section 61, in particular, sub-
sections 1 & 2 of Section 61 can be easily deciphered since the intent
stands clear enough to indicate that an adult worker must know his daily
placement and daily workings before hand - this placement before hand is
the requirement of the statute in section 63 and in the event of non-
compliance, there is a liability for being prosecuted. We have in the
complaint a statement that Form No.14 does not stand completed. We have
also in the complaint the number of working hours on a day but the
requirement of Form No.14, the inspector alleges, does not stand fulfilled.
It is too early at this stage, however, to contend that the afore-said statement
does not stand to reason and the complaint needs to be quashed at this stage
of the proceeding.
Mr. Dave, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the petition
though very strongly urged that the words "otherwise than in accordance
with the notice of periods of work for adults" displayed at the factory as
appears in section 63 there is thus complete compliance. The requirements
in terms of Rule 87 or 88 and that of Form No.14 also stand complied with.
Mr. Dave further pointed out that the second requirement of section 63 ought
to be co-related with Form No.28 under section 62 read with section 110 of
the Gujarat Factories Rules. The statute, however, in particular section 61
specifically requires entries to be made ’beforehand’ which stands virtually
engrafted in section 63. Compliance with Form No.28 is not in dispute but
compliance with Form No. 14 and entries to be made therein ’beforehand’
needs a further scrutiny of facts which at this stage of the proceeding cannot
be gone into. User of the expression ’before hand’ appears in section 61
which envisages a specific state of facts, which the complainant alleges as
not being complied with - criminal complaints ought not to be scuttled at the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
initial stages and quashing of complaint at the initial stages is rather an
exception than a rule. Beneficial legislations have been engrafted on the
statute book for the benefit of the socially down-trodden and on the wake of
such a situation, it would neither be fair nor be reasonable at this stage to
nullify the efforts of an inspector under the Rules. The matter needs further
enquiry and investigation as to the factum of entry being made before hand
in the register maintained in terms of section 61 of the Factories Act. It is
too early in the day to say that there would not be even a possibility of non-
compliance of section 63 which in turn envisages non-compliance of section
61 and section 62 of the Factories Act.
A long catena of cases some of which stand referred by us
hereinbefore in this judgment signifies one principle rule that the complaints
ought not to be quashed at the initial stages unless it is termed to be an abuse
of the process of the court: the complaint in question, in our view, cannot be
so termed as such we do not find any justification for interference with the
order as passed by the High Court. The Appeals, therefore, fail and are
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.