A mechanical prosecution sanction lacking application of mind invalidates consequential cognizance.

The petitioner, a Director of M/s Eris Bionxt Private Limited, a pharmaceutical manufacturing unit at Mandideep Industrial Area, Raisen, challenged proceedings arising from the death of Pavan Pal, a worker engaged through a contractor for maintenance services.

On 31 August 2025, Pal allegedly climbed over a parapet wall, fell through an ACP sheet forming part of a protective covering, and sustained fatal injuries.

Following inspection, the Factory Inspector issued a show-cause notice alleging violations of Rules 73(B) and 73(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Factories Rules, 1962 and Section 7-A(2)(c) of the Factories Act, 1948.

The petitioner submitted a reply attributing the accident to the deceased’s own conduct and asserting that adequate safety measures were in place.

The Chief Inspector of Factories nevertheless issued an order dated 20 November 2025 merely endorsing “prosecution sanctioned,” after which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, took cognizance on 28 November 2025 in UNCR No. 621/2025.

Whether the sanction order dated 20 November 2025 was legally valid when it merely endorsed prosecution without demonstrating consideration of the petitioner’s reply, inspection report, witness statements, or other relevant material.

Whether the order taking cognizance dated 28 November 2025 could be sustained when it was founded upon a sanction allegedly vitiated by non-application of mind.

Whether the High Court should examine, at the stage of proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the petitioner’s factual defence concerning the accident and alleged statutory violations.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and considered the sanction requirement under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948, together with the alleged violations of Section 7-A(2)(c) of the Factories Act and Rules 73(B) and 73(C) of the Madhya Pradesh Factories Rules, 1962.

It applied the settled principle that grant of prosecution sanction is not an empty formality: the sanctioning authority must independently and objectively examine the relevant material and record conscious satisfaction before authorising prosecution.

Relying on Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622, and Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, the Court held that non-application of mind vitiates sanction.

It also followed Gaurav Sood v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C. No. 39262/2022, decided on 24 August 2023, and ITC Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (1) Crimes 150 (MP), which hold that a sanction order merely stating “prosecution sanctioned,” without considering the reply to the show-cause notice and other relevant material, is legally unsustainable.

The Court further noted the analogous principles in Ness Wadia and K. Masthan Rao that failure to consider the noticee’s explanation demonstrates non-application of mind.

The Court found that the sanction order contained only a bare endorsement permitting prosecution and did not indicate that the petitioner’s detailed reply, inspection material, witness statements, or other relevant documents had been considered.

Applying the requirement of independent and objective satisfaction, the Court held that the sanctioning authority had not demonstrated due application of mind before authorising prosecution.

Since the sanction constituted the foundation of the complaint, the consequential cognizance order was also unsustainable; the Magistrate’s order did not disclose independent consideration of the complaint or satisfaction regarding the essential ingredients of the alleged statutory violations and merely proceeded on the basis of the complaint and defective sanction.

The Court expressly declined to determine whether the deceased, contractor, or petitioner was factually responsible for the accident, observing that the adequacy of safety measures, negligence, causation, and statutory liability were matters not decided on merits.

The Court set aside the sanction order dated 20 November 2025 and the consequential order dated 28 November 2025 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, took cognizance in UNCR No. 621/2025.

The quashing was confined to the invalid sanction and the cognizance founded upon it; the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the alleged accident or the petitioner’s liability under the Factories Act.

The competent authority was granted liberty to reconsider the matter afresh, consider all relevant material including the petitioner’s reply, and pass a valid, reasoned sanction order in accordance with law.

Thereafter, the respondents could take further permissible steps independently and subject to all statutory requirements.