Madras High Court
Jayant Damodar Patil vs B.Bala Murugan on 13 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.Nos.6368 & 6372 of 2023
Crl.O.P.No.9735 of 2023
Jayant Damodar Patil
M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd .. Petitioner in both Crl,O,Ps.
Vs.
B.Bala Murugan ... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section
428 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and to quash the complaint in
C.C.Nos.322 & 323 /2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruvallur.
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthik
(in Crl.O.P.No.9735/2023) Senior Counsel
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
For Petitioner : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia
(in Crl.O.P.No.9740/2023) Senior Counsel
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
(in both Crl.O.Ps.) Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)
COMMON O R D E R
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the
records and to quash the complaint in C.C.Nos.322 & 323 /2022 on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur.
2. For two different set of contravenes, two complaints have been
lodged as against the same petitioner by the same complainant, therefore,
by this Common order both the cases are being disposed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3. In Crl.O.P.No.9735 of 2023, the petitioner was a full-time
Director of M/s.Larsen & Toubro Limited and he has been designated
since 18.05.2020 as the Occupier of the Shipyard facility, located in
Kattupalli, i.e. 40 k.m away from Chennai. M/s.BRS Enterprises which
has been engaged by the Company for Shiplift Maintenance and docking
support provisioning of Shiplift Support Services in order to render
services, the said M/s.BRS Enterprises had engaged its own workers and
deputes them to the site after due training on various aspects of the work.
While so, M/s.BRS Enterprises has been deputing 12 number of workers
for rendering the services under the contract entered into between the
Company and the injured person, namely Mr.V.Sudhakar, who met with
an accident on 31.12.2020 and immediately he was given first aid and
admitted to Sugam Hospital , Thiruvotriyur for further treatment. All
medical expenses of the injured including the prosthetic limb, besides
paying the monetary compensation applicable for such injuries were
borne by M/s.BRS Enterprises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said accident was
duly informed by the petitioner to the Joint Director of Industrial Safety
and Health of the accident and requested time to file the Form-18
( Accident Report) on 04.01.2021. In pursuant to the said information,
the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 07.02.2022 by the
Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health as to why action should not
be taken against the company under the Factories Act. It was alleged in
the show cause notice that the petitioner had violated Section 41 Rule 61
F and Section 7(A)(2)(2) of the Factories Act,1948 by engaging the
injured in casting boat work whereas he was employed as a contract
worker by the Contractor only for the purpose of loading and unloading
and that the injured had no adequate supervision or training in that work
which had resulted in that accident.
5. Further, it is stated that the Company had violated Section
7(A)(1)(2) of the Factories Act by not ensuring the safety and welfare of
the workers while they were at work also there was contravene under
Section 41 G Rule 61M (1) to (5) of the Factories Act by not forming a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
safety committee with equal number of representatives of the
management and workers. The safety committee meetings were not
recorded and not produced to the authority. On receipt of the said show
cause notice, the petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 01.04.2022
thereby refuting the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Further,
without satisfying the explanation, the respondent filed a complaint and
the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.322 of
2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 41 Rule 61F, Section
7(A)(1)(2) and Section 41G Rule 61M(1) to (5) of the Factories Act .
6. The complaint in C.C.No.323 of 2023 has been filed against the
petitioner under Section 41(B) (4) read with Section 2(cb) 1 Schedule
Item 29 of the Factories Act, 1948, alleging that the petitioner had not
drawn up an upto date on site emergency plan and has not sent such plan
for the approval of the respondent. Further, contravene under Section
7A(3) and 41C, Section 112 Rule 62-O(1)(c)(4) read with Section 2(cb) I
Schedule Item 29 of the Factories Act, thereby large amount of hazardous
chemicals are used in the manufacturing process and there was no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
medical officer for every additional thousand workers or part thereof
with specified qualifications, one nurse, one dresser-cum-compounder
and one sweeper cum ward boy throughout the working period and the
particulars of the appointment of the factory medical officers was not
furnished. Further, it was alleged contravention under Section 41-B(2)
read with Section 7-A(3) and Section 112 and Rule 62-B(1(4) (5)(6)(7),
the occupier has not prepared a written statement of the policy in respect
of health and safety of workers at work.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that Section 106 of the Factories Act it is clearly mentioned
that prosecution must be alleged within a period of three months from the
date of knowledge of the Inspector and no Court has to take cognizance
of the complaint filed after the period of three months. Therefore, the
Trial Court has opined while taking cognizance, the accident was
happened on 31.12.2020 and the same was duly informed by the
petitioner vide letter dated 04.01.2021 under Form-18 to the Joint
Director of Industrial Safety and Health.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the
respondent and hence the complaint has been filed on 04.05.2022 before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the complaint, nowhere mentioned
about the explanation submitted by the petitioner there was absolutely no
contravene to attract any of the offence under Factories Act. The
Manager of M/s.Larsen and Toubro Limited already filed quash petition
before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.27129 of 2022 dated 14.03.2024 to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.324 of 2024 on the file Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruvallur and the said petition was allowed .
9. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
submitted that the accident was informed on 04.01.2021 to the Joint
Director of Industrial Safety and Health. Thereafter, the petitioner was
issued show cause notice on 07.02.2022 and the complaints have been
filed by the respondent vide ,/886-I/2022 and ,/886-II/2022 dated
02.05.2022. The delay had occurred only due to COVID-19 as per
Section 106 of the Factories Act, the date of intimation of the accident is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
entirely from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence
come to the knowledge of an Inspector. The commission or omission of
an offence can be determined by an Inspector only on the date of
inspection of concerned factory premises. During inspection process
only, the commission or omission of an offence under the Act can be
determined. Though the accident was intimated on 04.01.2021, but the
complaints have been filed on 04.05.2022 within the period of limitation.
Therefore, both the complaints are not barred by limitation .
10. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 106 of
the Factories Act, as follows:-
“Section 106(Limitation Prosecution) of the
Factories Act :-
Limitation of Prosecution : No Court shall
take cognizance of any offence punishable under
this Act unless complaint thereof is made within
three months of the date on which the alleged
commission of the offence came to the knowledge
of an inspector .
Provided that where the offence of
disobeying a written order made by an Inspector,
complaint thereof may be made within six months
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
of the date on which the offence is alleged to have
been committed.”.
11. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has
placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of P.D.Jambekar vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1973) 3 SCC
524, it has been held as under :-
“6. It was argued on behalf of the appellant
that when the report conveyed the information
about the accident, the Inspector should have
enquired into it with reasonable promptness
and as Section 106 prescribes a period of only
three months, from the date of the knowledge
of the commission of the offence for filing a
complaint the Inspector ought not have waited
for a period of 6 months for making the inquiry.
It was argued that if an Inspector were to come
to know of an accident, he cannot wait till such
time as he choose to make the inquiry and then
say that he came to know of the commision of
an offence under the Act as a result of the
inquiry and thus postpone at his whim the
starting point of limitation. There can be no
doubt that if the Inspector had conducted the
inqury earlier, he would have come to know of
the commission of the offence earlier. But our
attention was not drawn to any provision in the
Act or the rules framed under the Act which
obliged the Inspector to conduct an inquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
within any specified period after the receipt of
the report into the cause of accident. And in
interpreting a provision in a statute prescribing
a period of limitation of a proceeding,
questions of equity and hardship are out of
place.
8. As Section 106 makes the date of
knowledge of the commission of the offence
the starting point of the period of limitation, we
find it difficult to read the section so as to me
the date on which, the Inspector would or
ought to have acquired knowledge of the
commission of the offence had he been diligent,
the starting point of limitation , especially
where, as here the statue does not provide for
an inquiry into the accident muchless the
period with which the inquiry has to be made.
It is only in the jurisprudence of Humpty
Dumpty that we can equate the “ date on which
the alleged offence came to the knowledge of
an Inspector “ with the date on which the
alleged offence ought to have come to his
knowledge. We think that the High Court was
right in its conclusion”.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that insofar
as non consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the
petitioner's factory was inspected on 05.02.2022 and thereafter show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.02.2022 in both
complaints for the contraventions noticed during inspection and received
only on 23.03.2022. Thereafter, a reply to the show cause notice on
01.04.2022. After considering the reply, the petitioner was informed for
further legal action for those unrectified contraventions clearly indicating
that a serious accident in the factory has happened which caused a
“permanent disability” to the worker. Therefore, the reply submitted by
the petitioner is not accepted .
13. Accordingly, the complaint has to be lodged within the period
of three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the
offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector and as such no court can
take cognizance of the complaint after the period of three months from
the date of knowledge of the accident. The provision says that where the
offence consist of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector,
complaint can be made within six months from the date on which, the
offence is alleged to have been committed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
14. In the case on hand, the accident was occurred and taken
place on 31.12.2020. Subsequently, the intimation about the accident by
way of Form-18 was submitted on 04.01.2021 to the office of Joint
Director of Industrial Safety and Health. Therefore, the respondent
office had knowledge about the accident as early as on 04.01.2021.
However, the petitioner was issued show cause notice only on
07.02.2022 and the same was received by the petitioner on 24.03.2022 by
citing contravention under Section 41 Rule 61 F and Section 7(A)(1)(2),
Section 41G Rule 61M (1) to (5) of the Factories Act, 1948. However,
on receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted detailed
reply dated 01.04.2022. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's premises was
also inspected on 05.02.2022 . Thereafter, the complaints have been
lodged on 02.05.2022. Therefore, the complaints are clearly barred by
limitation and the Trial Court ought not to have take cognizance on the
complaints lodged by the respondent.
15. That apart, already the petitioner had paid compensation to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
injured and there is no other claim from the petitioner.
16. In view of the above, this Court finds that the complaints
lodged by the respondent cannot be sustained and accordingly, they are
liable to be quashed.
17. These criminal original petitions stand allowed and the
proceedings initiated in C.C.Nos.322 & 323 on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruvallur are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.03.2025
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
kkd
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
CRL.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
Tiruvallur.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kkd
Crl.O.P.Nos.9735 & 9740 of 2023
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2025 01:53:15 pm )
