Court No. - 50
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3686 of 2002 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Rajnesh Jain Dakhaldar Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Tiwari
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The application has been moved for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.4.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in Complaint Case No.1259 of 1995 (State Vs. Rajnesh Jain), under Sections 7-A and 21 of Factory Act, 1948 and U.P. Factories Act, 1950 its Section 52-B and 92 of the Act, by which learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondent for the charges under Sections7-A and 21 of Factory Act, 1948 and U.P. Factories Act, 1950 its Section 52-B and 92 of the Act.
Upon hearing learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, I find that in this matter of accident dated 19.1.1995 inside the factory the learned trial court has discussed and analysed the prosecution evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the inspection report of the incident in question and it is proved from the evidence on record that the sheet of deceased came in contact with Generator due to which the incident in question resulting in his death occurred and there was no carelessness of the respondent in the incident in question. The evidence on record shows that in the month of January due to excessive cold the deceased Tanveer had covered himself with the woollen sheet which was prohibited at the time of working in the factory and due to his own carelessness, the incident in question occurred.
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 AGA has failed to show any legal infirmity, 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 and substituting it with conviction order and no sufficient ground to grant leave to file appeal.
The application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Kpy
Order on Memo of Appeal
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on application for leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Kpy