Factories Act Is Not In Substitution Of Any Other Statute, Does Not Override Indian Penal Code: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a matter wherein usage of non-updated machinery led to the death of two labourers, held that provision of Factories Act, 1948 are not in substitution but are supplemental to any other Act; and thus they do not override the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that perusal...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a matter wherein usage of non-updated machinery led to the death of two labourers, held that provision of Factories Act, 1948 are not in substitution but are supplemental to any other Act; and thus they do not override the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that perusal of statement of objects and reasons of the Factories Act shows that the provisions are concerned with the working conditions and protection of the workers but the said Act does not prohibit operation of any other statute.
The observation was made in a petition preferred by two sons of a factory owner, seeking to set aside an order framing charges against him under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC.
The allegation in the FIR was not that the petitioners did not prescribe the safety precautions mandated by the Chief Inspector of Factories, but that the machinery installed had outlived its life and even though it was brought to the notice of the management, no action was taken thus risking the lives of the labours.
The Petitioners, while denying any responsibility in the matter, also contended that the offence in question would be governed by a special statute, viz. The Factories Act, 1948, as the field is occupied by a special statute and as such proceedings under the general provisions of Indian Penal Code could not have been instituted.
The Court however observed that the petitioners failed to point out any provision of law that merely because an offence also happens to be in violation of a special statute, the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code would not get attracted, despite, the necessary ingredients being satisfied.
"As a matter of fact, Section 119 of the Factories Act has been given an overriding effect with anything inconsistent contained in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 or any other law for the time being in force. Learned counsel has failed to point out as to how the provisions of Section 304-A IPC would be inconsistent with the provisions contained under the Factories Act, 1948. The provision of the Factories Act, 1948 are not in substitution of any other Act but are supplemental to the same. It does not override the Indian Penal Code or laws other than those specified above," the Bench osberved.
The court relied on the judgements of the State of Maharashtra & Anr Vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyad Subhan & Ors., Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and held that the prosecution of the petitioners for offences punishable under IPC cannot be set aside merely because such an offence is also punishable under the Factories Act, 1948.
In the absence of the petitioners being prosecuted or being tried under the Factories Act 1948, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that as the offence in question is also punishable under a separate statute, hence they must necessarily be prosecuted under the same statute only and cannot be prosecuted under any other statute despite the ingredients of the offence being made out.
After relying on the judgements of Malay Kumar Ganguly V/s Sukumar Mukherjee & others, reported, Mahadev Prasad Kaushik Vs. State of U.P. & Another and Ambalal D. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat, the court held that for holding a person responsible for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, the consequences and act must have an immediate proximity. Thus, the prosecution needs to establish that the consequence was a direct result of an act of rashness or negligence committed by the person charged.
Nevertheless, the Court was of the view that the petitioners cannot be forced to undergo a criminal trial since no material establishing their involvement in the operations of the factory has been placed on record. Further, there was no testimony of any expert establishing that the machinery deployed was outdated or was sub-standard having outlived its life.
A criminal liability cannot be fastened against an accused merely on account of an incident. Culpable liability arises on account of the said incident having occurred as a result of rashness or negligence on the part of an accused.
Accordingly, the present petition was allowed for the reason that the Revisional Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and its admissibility in law along with necessary ingredients required for prosecuting a person for the instant offence.
Case Title : DHANPREET SINGH AND ANR V. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 145