Madras High Court
Mr.M.L.S.Rao vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 November, 2021
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 18..11..2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Criminal Original Petition Nos.22104 & 22105 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10266 and 10268 of 2016
Mr.M.L.S.Rao, aged 84,
S/o Mr.Lakshman Rao,
Addision & Co. Ltd.,
F-65-B, Sipcot Industrial Park,
Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District 602 117.
... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.
-Versus-
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By The Deputy Director,
Industrial Safety and Health Circle-I,
Kancheepuram (Joint),
Sriperumbudur.
... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.22104 of 2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the entire records relating
to case in C.C.No.92 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chengalpattu, and to quash the same.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.22105 of 2016: Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the entire records relating
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
to case in C.C.No.93 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chengalpattu, and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayan for
M/s.King and Partridge for
petitioner in both the
original petitions
For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap,
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in both the original petition is the accused in C.C.Nos.92
and 93 of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.
Seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him pursuant to
the complaints made by the respondent, the petitioner, who is one of the
Directors of the company, has come up with these original petitions.
2. The respondent officer filed two complaints under the Factories Act,
1948, and the rules framed thereunder. The first complaint was filed by the
respondent alleging that the petitioner had failed to provide suitable
arrangements for sitting for all workers who obliged to work in a standing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
position and the floors of the factories were not maintained properly and at the
time of inspection the floors of the factories were found slippery and thereby
violated the provisions of Sections 44(1) and 32(a) of The Factories Act, 1948,
while other complaint was filed alleging that no lungs functioning tests were
done and X-Ray were taken on the workers who had been engaged to work in
shot blasting machines and no periodical medical examination have been
conducted on the workers as required under the provisions of the Factories Act,
1948 and thereby petitioner committed offence punishable under Section 87 and
95 of the Factories Act, 1948 r/w Clause 9-B(1) and 9-B(2) of Schedule VIII
appended to the Factories Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder. On taking
cognizance of the offence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued
process. Now, challenging the criminal proceedings, the accused is before this
court with these criminal original petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
submitted that before initiating criminal prosecutions, show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner had issued suitable reply stating
that (i) suitable arrangements have been made for sitting for all workers who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
obliged to work in a standing position; (ii) there is a separate housekeeping team
managed by “Sodexo Facility Management” and as per the schedule, outsourcing
staff have been regularly clearing the surface in the gear cutting, forming and
boring areas by wise on hourly frequency ensuring the safety of the workmen; (3)
suitable arrangements have been made for examination; and (4) renewal of
fitness certificate of the workmen engaged in the blasting enclosure by the
certified medical practitioner appointed by the department of Industrial Safety
and Health. But, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the
show cause notice, the present complaints have been filed in total non application
of mind. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this court to
quash both the criminal proceedings in entirety.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this
court the fact that, pursuant to the directions given by this court on 30.09.2016 at
the time when the original petitions were taken up for admission, the Labour
Inspector had once again inspected the petitioner's factory with regard to the
violations alleged in the complaints and reported to the court on 08.11.2016 that
the violations pointed in the complaints have all been rectified by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is 91 years old. Relying
upon the subsequent developments and the age of the petitioner, the learned
counsel for the petitioner prayed this court to take a lenient view in the matter. In
support of his submissions made above, the learned counsel relied upon a
judgment in K.Masthan Rao v. State 2014 (3) MWN (Cr) 86.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
respondent, on the other hand, submitted that on inspection the respondent
noticed various violations and after considering the reply issued to the show
cause notice only, the respondent had satisfied himself that there were violations
of provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 in the petitioner's factory and therefore,
filed the criminal complaints and the same have been taken cognizance by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on applying judicial mind. Therefore, no
illegality or infirmity could be found with the order of taking cognizance of the
offences by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the criminal original
petitions are liable only to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions carefully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
7. On perusal of the records, it could be seen that pursuant to the directions
issued by this court on 30.09.2016, the Labour Inspector concerned had once
again visited the factory of the petitioner and found that the violations alleged in
the respective complaints have all been rectified by the petitioner. This was
reported by the Labour Inspector to this court on 08.11.2016 itself.
8. In K.Masthan Rao v. State 2014 (3) MWN (Cr,) 86, a learned single
Judge of this court had quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground of non-
consideration of bona fides of explanation offered and for want of statement in
the complaint as to how offences still continue.
9. In the light of the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid legal
position, this court is of the view that non consideration of the reply given by the
petitioner to the show cause notice would amount to non application of mind on
the part of the respondent and therefore, the complaints are liable to be quashed
on this ground. Further, there is also no statement made in the complaint as to
the continuance of the offences. On this ground also the complaints are liable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
be quashed.
10. For the reasons discussed above, this court is of the view that
continuing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to
the complaints made by the respondent would only amount to abuse of process
and therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner are liable
only to be quashed in entirety.
In the result, the criminal original petitions are allowed and the criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.92 of 2015 and C.C.No.93
of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chegnalpattu, are
quashed in entirety. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand
closed.
Index : yes / no 18..11..2021
Internet : yes / no
Speaking / Non speaking Order
kmk
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.22104 & 22015 of 2016
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J.,
kmk
Criminal Original Petition
Nos.22104 & 22105 of 2016
18..11..2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
