THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1882 of 2007
Date:17.09.2014
Between:
M.L.Agarwal . Petitioner.
AND The State Andhra Pradesh, through S.I of Police, Saidapur, Karimnagar District, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1882 of 2007
ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 26-04-2006 in Crl.A.No.115/2006 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam whereunder judgment dated 31-07-2006 in S.T.C.No.42/2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to fling of this revision are as follows:- Inspector of Factories, Srikakulam filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that he failed to comply with the provisions of Factories Act & Rules and when accused denied the allegations, trial Court conducted trial, during which, two witnesses are examined and 11 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found that the revision petitioner herein contravened Rule 61–F (4) read with Rule 61-F (3) of A.P. Factories Rules and convicted the revision petitioner under Section 92 of the A.P Factories Act for the above said contravention and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session and I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam confirmed conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner has not contravened any of provisions of Factories Act or Rules and both the trial Court and appellate Court erred in convicting the revision petitioner.
He submitted that there is no breach of Section 61-F (3) & (4) of Factories Rules and the trial Court and appellate Court have convicted the revision petitioner on surmises and presumptions. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
4. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
5. Point:- According to prosecution, on 05-03-2002, while the deceased along with other co-workers were stocking jute bales, the deceased slipped and fell down, which resulted in his death, due to fall of one of the bales. Allegations is that revision petitioner is negligent in not taking necessary safety measures and responsible for the incident. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, on 12-03-2002, he received a phone call from the Personnel Officer, Neelam Jute Mills Private Limited, situated at Singuram, Srikakulam, about the death of one B. Veera Swamy and the accident that occurred on 05- 03-2002 in the premises. He deposed that he immediately made preliminary enquiry and inspected that factory and observed the manufacturing process carried on in the factory. He deposed that he again inspected the factory on 15-03-2002 along with Joint Chief Inspector and noticed violation of Rule 61-F (4) & (3), therefore, he filed the complaint before the Magistrate.
He was cross-examined on behalf of accused on which, he stated that he enquired the accused about the method of stocking the jute bales and that he also recorded the statement of Personnel Officer. The Chief Inspector of Factories was examined as P.W.2 and he also deposed about the preliminary enquiry conducted by P.W.1 with regard to the incident dated 05-03-2002 and that he accompanied P.W.1 for the inspection on 15-03-2002.
He also deposed that the management contravened Section 7 (a), Section 41, Rule 61- F (3) & (4) of Factories Act & Rules and he noticed that stocking of jute bales in an irregular manner in Godown No.14 and the bales were weighing 150 kgs were stocked against the wall and that there is no gap between the wall and the stock as required under the Rules. This witness was also cross examined, but nothing could be elicited from him. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, it is clear that on inspection, they have noticed some irregularities in the premises of the accused, which are in contravention of the Factories Acts & Rules. Considering the same, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court and both the Courts have rightly dealt with the provisions with reference to violations alleged, on the objections of revision petitioner in this regard cannot be sustained. On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any illegality committed by the Courts below and that there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court.
6. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and that the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. Accordingly, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming conviction and sentence.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:17.09.2014 mrb