[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ajithkumar S vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2026

                                                               2026:KER:4449
Crl.R.P.No.252/2017
                                            -:1:-

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

     WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947

                             CRL.REV.PET NO. 252 OF 2017

      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2016 IN Crl.A NO.364 OF
    2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2014 IN
   CC NO.3247 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL Magistrate OF FIRST CLASS
                    -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

REVISION PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

        1             AJITHKUMAR S.
                      OCCUPIER, M/S.VINAYAKA PRIME VEHICLES (PVT.) LTD.,
                      MUTTATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        2             DENNY S.
                      MANAGER, M/S.VINAYAKA PRIME VEHICLES (PVT.) LTD.,
                      MUTTATHARA,
                      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.


                      BY ADV SHRI.S.SHAJI

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

        1             STATE OF KERALA
                      REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS,
                      GRADE-I,
                      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        2             STATE OF KERALA
                      REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                      ERNAKULAM.

                      SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19.01.2026, THE COURT ON 21.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                               2026:KER:4449
Crl.R.P.No.252/2017
                                        -:2:-


                                       ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram and the Additional Sessions Court-V,

Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C.No.3247/2013 and Crl.A.No.364/2014,

convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offence

under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948(in short, 'Act'), are under

challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that at an inspection conducted on

24.12.2012 by the Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Grade-I,

Thiruvananthapuram, at the unregistered factory under the occupation

and control of the petitioners, violations under Rule 74 of the Factories

Rules, 1957, and Section 31 of the Act, were detected. It is alleged in the

complaint that the petitioners failed to hydrostatically test the air receiver

of the air compressor which is a pressure vessel, by a competent person

before taking into use the same. It is further alleged that the petitioners

failed to maintain muster roll in Form No.25. According to the

complainant, the petitioners did not respond to show cause notice issued

to them on 22.01.2013.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the complainant

was examined as PW1 and 10 documents were marked as Exts P1 to 2026:KER:4449

P10. From the part of the accused, one witness was examined as DW1

and two documents were marked as Exts D1 & D2. It is after the

evaluation of the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate found

the petitioners guilty of commission of the offence under Section 92 of

the Act in connection with the violations mentioned aforesaid.

Accordingly, the learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioners to simple

imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Though the

petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Sessions Court,

Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Session Judge, who

considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the

learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming

the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by

the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioners are

here before this Court with this revision.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the

petitioners on consecutive posting dates, notice was issued to them

intimating the next posting date and also informing them that the case

would be disposed of in their absence, if there is no representation from

their part. The aforesaid notices were returned unserved with the

endorsements 'addressee not known' and 'addressee left'. In the above 2026:KER:4449

circumstances, this Court appointed Adv. Ms. Chithra Chandrasekharan

as Amicus Curiae to represent the revision petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision

petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of

Kerala.

6. The impugned verdicts of the courts below are challenged by

the petitioners on the basis of the contention that their business

establishment where the complainant conducted inspection, was not a

factory as defined under Section 2(m) of the Act. It is to be noted that

as per Section 2(m)(i) of the Act, a premises where 10 or more workers

are working could be termed as a factory, if a manufacturing process is

being carried on with the aid of power at that premises. As per the

definition contained in Section 2(k) of the Act, making, altering,

repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning,

breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or

substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal

could be termed as manufacturing process. The inspection report

prepared by the complainant in the case on hand would reveal that

repairing and servicing of three wheelers were being carried on by

employing 22 workers at the premises of the establishment run by the 2026:KER:4449

petitioners. That being so, there is absolutely no basis for the challenge

that the establishment of the petitioners where the complainant

conducted the inspection on 24.12.2012 was not a factory. The

judgments rendered by the courts below would reveal that the relevant

provisions of law have been correctly applied by the courts below while

arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners committed the violations

mentioned in the complaint, in their factory. It is not possible for this

Court to interfere with the aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts

below in a proceedings of revision under section 397 Cr.PC. Therefore,

the conviction of the petitioners for the commission of offence under

Section 92 of the Act, is liable to be upheld.

7. As regards the sentence awarded by the courts below, it

appears that the simple imprisonment for six months which the

petitioners were directed to undergo, is a little bit harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the

petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that the prison term awarded by

the courts below as punishment for the offence involved in this case, is

liable to be excluded. At any rate, the petitioners will have to remit the

fine of Rs.10,000/- each which the learned Magistrate imposed, and the

learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed. 2026:KER:4449

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part as follows:

(i)The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioners for the commission of offence under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, are hereby upheld.