Court No. - 50
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 517 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- N.C.Garg Occupier/Manager M/S. Shamli Paper Mills Counsel for Appellant :- V.S. Mishra,A.G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The application has been moved by State for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Case No.2960/9 of 1996, acquitting the respondent from the charges under sections 7A Factories Act,1948 and Factories Adhiniyam Nimawali 150 Rule 52-C.
Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned AGA submitted that due to negligence on the part of respondent on 2.6.1996 at 7:00 p.m. when workman Raj Kumar was loading Vegas (Ganne ki Khoi) in digester no.5, the warm vegas came out of the digester, due to pressure and fell on him, due to which he sustained injuries and died on 8.6.1996; that the accused-respondent submitted an information of incident on form no.18 on 12.6.1996 which consists all information and Assistant Director Factories inspected the site but the trial court has acted wrongly in disbelieving the prosecution case for not producing any other evidence as well as shift incharge and Chandveer; that the trial court has acted wrongly in not considering the fact that prosecution witness Chandveer was won over by accused and has been produced as defence witness no.1.
Upon hearing learned AGA and perusal of record, I find that the prosecution has not produced any other evidence, except producing P.W.1 the Assistant Director Factories and form no.18 the inspection report. Learned trial court has held that D.W.1, Chandveer before whom inspection was made by Assistant Director Factories was a worker of factory and has stated on oath that when he opened the lid of the digester to put material therein, he asked the victim Raj Kumar and all others to go behind, but meanwhile Raj Kumar suddenly dashed with the wall and sustained injuries due to fall over the warm vegas and there was no negligence on the part of manager of the factory, the accused respondent.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs.
P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned trial court has not committed any mistake and the learned AGA has failed to show any legal infirmities, incorrectness or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order of acquittal in the mater relating to 22 years old incident and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Tamang
Order on Memo of Appeal Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on application for grant of leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Tamang