1 2025:CGHC:28639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 593 of 2012 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Deputy Director Industrial Health and Safety Housing Board Complex G.E. Road, Raipur Naka Durg, District Durg, C.G., 2. The Deputy Director, Factory Inspector Industrial Health And Safely Housing Board Complex G.E.Road , Raipur Naka, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants versus 1. S.K.Jain, S/o S.C.Jain, Aged About 70 Years, R/o A/66 Vrindavan Colony Jindal Road Raigarh, District – Raigarh, C.G. 2. (Deleted) Ravi Kumar (Died) S/o (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21- 10-2024) ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. It transpires from the record that present criminal revision has been filed against the acquittal of the two non-applicants/respondents out of which, non-applicant No.2/respondent No.2 - Ravi Kumar, has died and his name has been deleted from the array of the parties by the Court's order PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.01 17:04:17 +0530 2 dated 21.10.2024, hence, the present revision survives with respect to non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1. 2. This criminal revision under Sections 397, 401 of the CrPC is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 18.10.2011 passed by the learned State Industrial Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 05/C.G.I.R.Act/IV/2011, whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted from the charges under Section 41 of Factories Act read with Rule 73-E, Part (E) of sub-Section (2) of Section 7 and sub-rule -1 of Rule 124-B of Chhattisgarh Factories Rules read with Section 92 of Factories Act, arising out of Criminal Case No.426/2007/Factories Act/Fatal, judgment dated 04.02.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, Durg (C.G.). Hence, this revision. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 06/03/2007 at about 11.35 A.M., in the event of non-stopping of the Dust Catcher Valve of Blast Furnace No. 04 through electric operation, the worker Ram Sumer and Prakash Gawande opted for manual stopping. But they were not provided with Gas-Mask by the respondents/accused. In the process of operating the Dust Catcher Valve without Gas-Mask, leakage of poisonous gas led to the death of workers-Ram Sumer. It is also alleged in the prosecution case that on the fateful day even before deputing the workers at the workplace no gas monitoring was conducted to ascertain whether the quantity of poisonous gas in the Blast Furnace has reached the dangerous level or not. It was also not ascertained regarding the level of pressure of the gas by lessening the pressure of the gas and the workers were not provided with Gas-Mask. It is also alleged; knowing that in the Blast Furnace Region there is every likelihood of leakage of gas, even then the Gas Monitoring Equipment were not made available. Accordingly, Part (e) of sub-Section (2) of Section 7-A was violated. No necessary 3 arrangements, made in relation to monitoring of Blast Furnace Gas were found. Accordingly, sub-rule-1 of Rules 124-B of Chhattisgarh Factories Rules was violated. Under the above mentioned facts is violation of Section 41 of-Factories Act, read with Rule 73-E, Part (E) of sub-Section (2) of Section 7 and sub-rule 1 of Rule 124-B of Chhattisgarh Factories Rules and according to Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, the prosecution has filed complaint before the Labour Court/Trial Court in order to punish the respondents/accused. 4. Both the respondents/accused denied the charges, which were alleged on them, under the above mentioned sections. In the trial, prosecution examined its witnesses and proved the charges framed against the respondents/accused. In the trial, both the accused claimed themselves to be innocent but not examined any defence witnesses. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties passed the judgment on 04/02/2011 thereby convicting the appellants U/s 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in case of non-payment of fine, a simple imprisonment of 4-4 months shall be binding on both the respondents/accused. 5. Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the applicant No.1/State submits that the order of the acquittal which was passed by the State Industrial Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (in short the 'Tribunal') setting-aside the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the said accused/respondents were convicted under Section U/s 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and sentenced till the arising of the Court and further, a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was imposed on them. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal while acquitting the accused/respondents has committed error in coming to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate 4 has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in view of under Section 29(2) of Cr.P.C. Secondly, there are total 5 prosecution witnesses in the case including the complainant whose names are mentioned in the charge-sheet, out of which only the evidence of complainant- Shri K.K.Dwivedi (PW-1) was recorded and rest of the four witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. It is further stated by him that though the witnesses whose statement were not recorded by the trial Court but their statements during the course of investigation, is on record. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the acquittal which has been passed by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with law and it does not require any interference by this Court as the learned Tribunal while setting aside the impugned order, was right in coming to the conclusion that out of five prosecution witnesses whose names are mentioned in the charge-sheet and whose statements were recorded during the course of investigation but only the evidence of one of the witness, Shri K.K.Dwivedi (PW-1) who lodged the complaint was examined and the other four prosecution witnesses were not examined by the trial Court nor the prosecution witnesses were got discharged, hence, the Tribunal has rightly set-aside the impugned judgment. Further, the imposition of fine by exceeding of jurisdiction is concerned, the said argument of the learned counsel for the respondent could not meet out as it is stated that the trial Court was well into his jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 92 of the Factories Act while imposing fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 8. Considering the fact that the prosecution which relied upon the evidence of five prosecution witnesses, only the complainant, namely, Shri K.K.Dwivedi (PW-01) was examined and rest of the four prosecution witnesses who are the workmen and were present at the time of incident, their evidence was not recorded by the trial Court nor they were discharged, the Tribunal was right in acquitting the respondents. As such, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Tribunal, being well merited, does not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, I do not find any compelling & substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, this revision, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti