These Criminal Original Petition are filed to quash the complaint in CC.No.3389/2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.
2. The Petitioners are the Director & Chief Executive/Occupier and the Manager of M/s.Addison Co. Limited (herein after referred to as the Company), having their Factory and Office at Door Nos.4, 18 & 19, Smith Road, Chennai-2. The said Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on the business of manufacturing engineering metal cutting tools and machine tools. On 11.2.2006 at about 4.30 p.m. in Plant No.1, a minor fire accident occurred in a grinding machine. Immediately the power connection was switched off and fire alarm was switched on. Thereafter, all the workers were asked to vacate the place of work immediately and the employees trained on the usage of fire fighting equipment swung into action and the fire was put off. No one was injured and no property was damaged. The reason for the minor fire accident was that the coolant oil supply to the grinding machine was cut off. The Respondent had filed the complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in CC.NO.3389/2006, alleging that the there is a violation of
Section 38(3) of the Factories Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the Act) read with Rule 61(4)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 (herein after referred to as the Rules). The material used for avoiding spillage of coolant oil was made of 'kevlar', which is totally a fire resistant. According to the Petitioners, the Company had taken all precautions as per the provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder.
3. According to the Petitioners, the complaint does not disclose even a prima facie offence nor mentions about any specific violation of the Rules or Act attributable to the Petitioners.
4. Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners drew the attention of this court to
Section 38(1)(3) of the Act, which empowers the State Government to make the Rules in respect of the Factory or Clause or description of factories, requiring the measures to be adopted to give effect to the provisions of sub sections 1 and 2 of Section 38 of the Act. Rule 61(4) of the Rules deals with the precautions to be adopted when there is an accumulation of flammable or explosive substances. The learned senior counsel would submit that the Petitioner Company is not dealing with either accumulation of explosive or flammable substances, as they are in the business of manufacturing cutting tools, which does not come under the definition of accumulation of flammable or explosive substances.
5. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners would further contend that only when an obligation is imposed by the Act or Rules framed thereunder on the Petitioner Factory to provide safety means or measures to prevent initiation of ignition due to over heating or due to disconnection of coolant oil with the grinding machine and if that protection measure is not provided by the Factory, then it would amount to violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. In the absence of such accusation, the Petitioner Factory cannot be prosecuted for such a minor fire accident, which had occurred due to disconnection of coolant oil supply to the grinding machine and it is nothing but mere an accident. The learned senior counsel would further submit that there is no specific Rule with regard to the safety precautions to the grinding machine and in fact, the Company had taken all reasonable precautions as per the statutory provisions by using the material viz. 'kevlar', which is totally a fire resistant for avoiding the spillage of coolant oil.
6.
Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 being penal in its character must be construed strictly. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the petitioners have failed to provide specific precautionary measures intended to the grinding machine in case of disconnection of coolant oil supply to the grinding machine. Only when it is shown that a particular precautionary device had not been provided by the Factory, thus contravening the Rules, then the onus is on the Manager or the Occupier of the Factory to show that the safe guard was provided, but in spite of it, it resulted in the fire accident.
7. Rule 61 deals about fire protection and sub clause 4 of Rule 61 deals about the precautions against ignition. It specifically reads that wherever there is a danger of fire or explosion or accumulation of flammable or explosive substances in air, then all other precautions as are reasonably practicable shall be taken by the Company to prevent initiation of ignition from all other possible sources, such as open flames, frictional sparks, overheated surfaces of machinery or plant or chemical or physical chemical reaction and radiant heat.
8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not dealing either with accumulation of explosives or flammable substances. Since the Company is engaged in the manufacturing of engineering material cutting and machine tools, there is no chance for accumulation of flammable or explosive substance. Even in the complaint, there is no allegation that there was accumulation of flammable or explosive substance and no safe guard is made to prevent ignition from the other possible sources, so as to attract the Rule 61(4)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950. Mere allegation by the Prosecution that the owner has contravened the Rules specified in Rule 61(4)(f) of the Rules is not enough to prove contravention of the Rules, unless it is shown what was wanting in the grinding machine as prescribed by the Rules. Unless there is a specific averment in the complaint indicating the nature of the accusation made against the owner or the occupier that they willfully failed to provide the safe-guard, it is not possible for the petitioners to state his defence. In such view of the matter, no liability could be fastened on the petitioners to have contravened any of the Rules, as alleged by the Prosecution.
9. For the reasons stated above, criminal proceedings initiated in CC.NO.3389/2006 does not disclose any prima facie offence and hence, the same is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed and these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.
Srcm To:
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras