Jharkhand High Court
Ranveer Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1406 of 2013
1. Ranveer Sinha
2. Nagenera Chandra Mahapatra ...... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Inspector of Factories having its office at Jamshedpur Anchal No. 1 P.O. and P.S.
Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East. ...... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
09/Dated: 06/04/2023
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the
State.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2012 in connection
with C/2 Case No. 388/2012, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
3. The complaint has been filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that
on the alleged date of inspection i.e. 16.05.2012 it was found that no proper
Ambulance Room was maintained nor doctor and para medical officers were
appointed which was in gross violation of Section 45(4) of the Factories Act
and also Rule 65 of the Jharkhand Factories Rule, 1950.
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no.1 is occupier and the petitioner no. 2 is Manager of the factory
namely Tata Hitachi. He further submits that on 31.03.1999 Telco Construction
Equipment Company Limited was come into existence by separation from the
parent company i.e. Tata Motors Limited. He further submits that from
05.12.2012 Telco Construction Equipment Company Limited is now known as
Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Limited. He further submits that Tata
Motors Limited and Telco Construction Equipment Company Limited had
entered into an agreement on 02.02.2004 for common services including
Ambulance Room and Medical Facilities provided to the Telecom on certain
charges vide annexure-2. He further submits that Senior General Manager
(Operation and Factory Manager) on 02.09.2008 made an application for
exemption from the provision of Rule-65, Bihar Factory Rules, 1950 related to
Ambulance Room and medical facilities contained in annexure-3. He further
submits that the Senior General (Manufacturer and Factory Manager) vide
reference dated 03.09.2012 had made reminder by earlier letter dated
02.09.2008, an application for exemption of certain provisions contained in
Rule 65 of Bihar Factories Rule related to the Ambulance Room. He submits
that Annexure-6 which is letter dated 23.03.2013 the Department had
exempted the factory namely, Telecon Construction Equipment Company
Limited (now known as Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Limited).
On these grounds he submits that to allow the proceeding to be continued will
amount the process of the court.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that compliance of said
Rule was not there that is why case has been filed and the learned court has
taken cognizance.
6. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that on
02.02. 2004 Tata Motors Limited and Telco Construction Equipment Company
Limited had entered into an agreement for common services including
Ambulance Room and Medical Facilities provided to the Telecon on certain
charges. The petitioners had already applied for exemption on 02.09.2008 and
reminder was sent on 03.09.2012. In the meantime present case has been
filed. Admittedly, by way of Annexure-6 the Exemption has already been
granted by Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand vide letter dated
23.03.2013. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence and in this
regard reference may be made to the Case of "Nathulal V. State of Madhya
Pradesh" reported in AIR 1966 SC 43 wherein para 4 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
"4. The law on the subject is fairly well settled. It has come under judicial
scrutiny of this Court on many occasions. It does not call for a detailed
discussion. It is enough to restate the principles. Mens rea is an essential
ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless a state may exclude the element of
mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also
accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in
conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute
expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. The mere fact that
the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a
grave social evil is by itself not decisive of the question whether the element
of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by
necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is
absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would
otherwise be defeated. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a
statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the
provisions thereof : see Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. King-Emperor [(1947) ILR 26
Pat 460 (PC)] , Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. State [1951 SCC 241 : (1951) SCR
322] ; and Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1961) 3 SCR 324] . Most
of the relevant English decisions on the subject were referred to in the
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George [
Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1963 (Judgment delivered on 21-8-1964] . How to
disprove mens rea has been succinctly stated in Halsbury's Laws of England,
3rd Edn., Vol. 10, at p. 283, thus:
"When the existence of a particular intent or state of mind is a necessary
ingredient of the offence, and prima facie proof of the existence of the
intent or state of mind has been given by the prosecution, the defendant
may excuse himself by disproving the existence in him of any guilty intent
or state of mind, for example, by showing that he was justified in doing
the act with which he is charged, or that he did it accidentally, or in
ignorance, or that he had an honest belief in the existence of facts which,
if they had really existed would have made the act an innocent one. The
existence of reasonable grounds for a belief is evidence of the honesty of
that belief."
7. In view of above facts, it transpires that the petitioners have
already applied for exemption and the authority concerned did not
communicate to them about the decision taken and the factory was already in
operated. Therefore, it cannot be said that intentionally the petitioners have
contravened the provisions of Factories Act and Rule. It is an admitted fact
that the exemption was already granted by letter dated 23.03.2013 contained
in Annexure-6.
8. In view of above reasons and analysis, the entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 07.08.2012 in connection
with C/2 Case No. 388/2012, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, is hereby quashed.
9. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any,
stands disposed of. Interim order is vacacted.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
