Skip to content


Thakur Chand Dwadeshreni Vs. State Through G.D. Bishnoi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. No. 1008 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1960All91; (1959)ILLJ233All
ActsFactories Act, 1948 - Sections 8(2), 8(6), 9 and 105
AppellantThakur Chand Dwadeshreni
RespondentState Through G.D. Bishnoi
Appellant AdvocateSatyaprakash, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovernment Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of factories act, 1948 - whether court can take cognizance of a case when complaint is filed by chief inspector of factories and not by inspector - legislature conferred power on inspector to file or sanction a complaint - such a complaint shall be deemed to be a complaint by inspector - power is also conferred impliedly on chief inspector under section 105 - held, court can take cognizance of such offence on basis of complaint by chief inspector. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held,..........of an offence punishable under the provisions of the factories act on a complaint filed by the chief inspector of factories.2. against the applicant a complaint was filed by the chief inspector, of factories and when the case came up before the learned magistrate a point was raised that the court had no power to take cognizance of the case because the complaint was incompetent, having been filed not by an inspector but by a chief inspector. this contention was rejected by the learned magistrate who in support of his view relied on a decision of a learned single judge of this court in criminal misc. no. 422 of 1955; gopi nath bhargava v. state, decided on 2nd february, 1956 (lucknow bench).3. the contention which was overruled by the learned magistrate has been repeated in this court.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.P. Srivastava, J.

1. This is an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It raises a very short point. That point is whether a court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Factories Act on a complaint filed by the Chief Inspector of Factories.

2. Against the applicant a complaint was filed by the Chief Inspector, of Factories and when the case came up before the learned Magistrate a point was raised that the court had no power to take cognizance of the case because the complaint was incompetent, having been filed not by an Inspector but by a Chief Inspector. This contention was rejected by the learned Magistrate who in support of his view relied on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 422 of 1955; Gopi Nath Bhargava v. State, decided on 2nd February, 1956 (Lucknow Bench).

3. The contention which was overruled by the learned Magistrate has been repeated in this Court and it is urged on that basis that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate were without jurisdiction and should on that account be quashed.

4. I have heard learned counsel at some length but he has been unable to satisfy me about the correctness of his contention.

5. Section 105 of the Factories Act debars a court from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint by, or with the previous consent in writing of, an Inspector. From this it follows that the Act contemplates that an Inspector alone shall be entitled either to file a complaint or to accord a sanction in respect of it. This means that the Legislature conferred a power on an Inspector to file or sanction a complaint and it was after he had filed the complaint or sanctioned it that it could be taken cognizance of by the court.

6. If we refer to Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Factories Act we will find a provision according to which 'The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette appoint any person to be a Chief Inspector who shall, in addition to the powers conferred on a Chief Inspector under this Act, exercise the powers of an Inspector throughout the State'. A Chief Inspector while being a Chief Inspector is for certain purposes an Inspector also. He can, in addition to his powers of a Chief Inspector, exercise the powers of an Inspector throughout the State. If the filing of a complaint is included among the powers of an Inspector, there appears to be no reason why a Chief Inspector should not be in position to exercise that power. At least for the purposes of filing a complaint he will be an Inspector though for other purposes he may be a Chief Inspector. Thus the provisions in the Factories Act themselves make it clear that a complaint can be filed by the Chief Inspector also. The complaint filed by him will, therefore, be a complaint' filed by an Inspector and the Court can take cognizance of the offence on the basis of that complaint.

7. Mr. Justice Mulla took the same view in Criminal Misc. No. 422 of 1955. D/-2-2-1956, already referred to and I respectfully agree with his observations.

8. Learned counsel urged that Section 9 of the Factories Act provided for powers of Inspector and the filing of a complaint was not included in it. From that he wanted to infer that the power to file a complaint was not a power conferred by the Act on an Inspector. It is difficult to agree with this contention. The power to file a complaint is impliedly conferred by Section 105. Section 9 deals with the other powers which may be exercised by an Inspector. It does not in any way exclude the power conferred by implication by Section 105 of the Act.

9. Learned counsel also pointed out that under Clause (6) of Section 8 if there were more Inspectors than one their jurisdiction had to be defined and limited. He urged that that could not be done with a Chief Inspector. This provision is however only a permissive provision. Action may or may not be taken under it. It is open to the State Government to allow all the Inspectors in a district, if there are more than one, to exercise jurisdiction throughout the district. If an Inspector can exercise jurisdiction throughout a district why should not a Chief Inspector do the same. This provision too does not, therefore, in any way militate against the view that an Inspector can file a complaint and that the Chief Inspector if he is an Inspector for that purpose can also file a complaint entitling the court to take cognizance.

10. Reference was made to some of the rules framed under the Factories Act but it does not appear to me to be necessary to refer to them. The provisions of the Act itself are clear and show beyond doubt that a Chief Inspector could file a complaint & cognizance could be taken on its basis by the Court: Rules cannot override the provisions of the Act. The only point urged on behalf of the applicant is, therefore, without force. The impugned proceedings are valid and cannot be quashed. The application is accordingly dismissed. The stay order is discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //