Jharkhand High Court
Ravindra Chandra Dey @ Mansa Dey @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2023
Cr. Revision No.163 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 163 of 2016
Ravindra Chandra Dey @ Mansa Dey @ Rabinda Chanda Dey
... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. Rohit, Advocate
For the State : M/s. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
-----
C.A.V. on 25.01.2023 Pronounced on 27.02.2023
1. Heard the Parties.
2. This application is being disposed of the at the stage of
admission itself.
3. This application has been filed against the judgment dated
12.01.2016 passed by Sri Mahendra Prasad, learned Additional
Sessions Judge -XIII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 280/2012,
whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge -XIII,
Dhanbad affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by Sri Santosh Kumar, learned J.M.F.C., Dhanbad in F.A.
Case No. 290/2005, (T.R. No. 1160/2012), holding the petitioner
Ravindra Chandra Dey @ Mansa Dey @ Rabinda Chanda Dey
guilty of the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and
thereby sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one
year along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of
fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months.
4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the official
complaint filed by Shri B. A. Kumar, factory inspector of circle
No.1, Bokaro, alleging therein that on 20.04.2005 at about 10:30
A.M. he inspected the premises of M/s. R.D.M. Bricks at Rajganj,
Dhanbad and found that the said concern was being operated
without a valid license as required under the Factories Act, 1948. It
Cr. Revision No.163 of 2016
was also alleged that the workers were not given photo identity card
in violation of the Rules. On inquiry from one of the worker
namely, Phulchand Mahato, it transpired that the petitioner was
occupier of the factory.
Both the learned trial court as well as the learned Appellate Court
have come to a con-current finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioner.
5. Mr. Rohit, learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the
petitioner was occupier of the factory in question. Accordingly, it
was prayed that this revision application be allowed.
6. Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the
state has submitted that the workers who were found working in the
premises of M/s. R.D.M. Bricks had revealed that the petitioner was
occupier of the factory.
7. The complainant Byomkesh Amrendra Kumar, (P.W.1) has very
clearly stated at paragraph four of his deposition that Phulchand
Mahato was present in the premises of M/s. R.D.M. Bricks and he
revealed that the petitioner was occupier of the factory. He has
further stated in his cross-examination that Karamchari of the
Rajganj circle told him that the land belonged to the petitioner.
8. Both the learned trial court as well as the learned Appellate
Court have come to a conclusion that the petitioner was the
occupier and the delinquent factory only on the basis of the
aforesaid statement of the complainant Byomkesh Amrendra Kumar
(P.W.1). It is apparent that there is no direct evidence on record to
show that the petitioner was occupier of the factory. The evidence
which the prosecution has relied upon is merely a hearsay evidence.
Neither Phulchand Mahato nor the Circle Karamchari have been
examined to prove the fact that the petitioner was the occupier of
the factory and owner of the land on which it was running.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the
opinion that both the learned trial court as well as the Appellate
Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the
Cr. Revision No.163 of 2016
petitioner.
10. This Revision Application is allowed.
11. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence in F.A. No.
290/2005 is set aside.
12. The petitioner is on bail, he alongwith his bailors are
discharged from the liabilities towards bail bonds.
13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
