1 2026:CGHC:20813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 759 of 2012 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through -The Deputy/Assistant Director, Industrial Health & Safety, Bilaspur , District-Bilaspur C.G. 2 - The Deputy Director / Factory Inspector, Industrial Health & Safety , Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. ... Applicants Versus 1 - Anuj Rana S/o M/s Neelkanth System Pvt. Ltd. Risda , Balco Nagar , Distt. Korba C.G. 2 - P.K. Banerjee M/s Neelkanth System Pvt. Ltd. Risda , Balco Nagar, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ...Respondents For Applicants/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vimal Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 05.05.2026 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 1. This Criminal Revision is preferred under Section 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 01/I.D. Act/IV/2011 “Anuj Rana & Another Vs. State of C.G. & Another”, whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted (in part) of the charges under Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 3(A) (3) and Rule 95 of Factory Rules, 1962. For the sake of brevity “the Act” arising out of Criminal Case No. 18/ Factories Act/2008, judgment dated 17.03.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court-Korba. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused own a factory named M/s Neel Kantham System Pvt. Ltd. in Risda Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba. Accused No. 1-Anuj Rana is the occupant of the factory, and Accused No. 2-P.K. Banerjee is the factory Manager. On 15.02.2008, the Complainant inspected the factory in the presence of the factory watchman, Babulal. During the inspection, the Complainant found that the accused were using 30 horsepower of electrical power and employing 18 workers to manufacture fly ash bricks without obtaining a Stability Certificate in Form No. 2 and submitting it to the Factory Inspector. During the Complainant's inspection of the accused's factory on 15.02.2008, it was also found that the accused had not displayed the working hours information in Form No. 13 at the factory, nor had a copy been sent to the Factory Inspector's office. Upon inspection by the complainant, the accused were found to have violated the provisions of Rule 3(A) (3) of the Rules, 1962 and Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 3A (1) of the Rules, 1962. A letter dated 20.02.2008 was sent to the accused through a registered A.D. to rectify the said 3 violations. As the accused did not rectify the violations in compliance with the said letter, the complainant sent them a show cause notice dated 05.05.2008 through a registered AD, but despite this, the accused did not rectify the alleged violations. Consequently, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused for the said violations under Section 92 of the Act, 1948. 3. After completion of the due and necessary investigation, a charge- sheet was filed against the accused/respondents before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, where the accused/respondents were convicted vide judgment dated 17.03.2011 under Section 92 of the Act, 1948 and thereafter the matter was committed to learned State Industrial Court as both the accused/respondents preferred Criminal Appeal and vide judgment dated 24.12.2011 the learned State Industrial Court has acquitted respondent No. 2- P.K. Banerjee and modified the sentence of respondent No. 1- Anuj Rana. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 01 witness to prove its case against the respondents. However, in their defence the accused person did not adduce any witness. 5. Learned counsel for the State/appellants submits that the judgment, finding and order of acquittal passed by the learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur/Appellate Court is illegal, improper and incorrect and thus liable to be set aside. The learned State Industrial Court has committed an error in deciding the facts in the case and also on the law points. The order of acquittal passed by the learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur/Appellate Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents, but the learned Appellate Court has 4 overlooked the provision of Section 92 of the Act, 1948 which provides that in any proceeding for an offence for the contravention of any provision of this Act or rules made thereunder consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement, to prove that it was not reasonably practicable or, as the case may be, all practicable measures were taken to satisfy the duty or requirement. On perusal of the entire prosecution documents and statement of witnesses it is well established that the alleged offence has been committed by the respondents/accused and the learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur has erred in not looking to the prosecution case in the proper perspective. The learned State industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench Bilaspur/Appellate Court has erred in evaluating the evidence of the prosecution witness- Manish Shrivastava, Factory Inspector has specifically stated against the accused persons regarding the whole incident. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused/respondents. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned State Industrial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly modified the sentence of respondent No. 1- the Occupier. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This revision being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. None for respondent No. 2. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned order. 5 9. It is apparent from the record that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide judgment dated 17.03.2011, convicted the accused/respondents for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, both the accused/respondents preferred an appeal before the learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Bench at Bilaspur. The learned State Industrial Court, vide judgment dated 24.12.2011, allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 2 and partly allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 1 by modifying the sentence imposed upon him. 10. It is further evident from record that the prosecution has examined the Factory Inspector-Manish Shrivastava and the learned trial Court relied upon the statement of Manish Shrivastava and convicted both the respondents. The learned State Industrial Court after observing the guideline of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and also observing the guideline in AIR 1954 Nagpur 41 held that: “Only occupier will be liable for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules if the responsibility for observing the provisions has not been imposed on some other person. If specific duty is laid on a particular person. The responsibility for the breach will be his. The obligation to maintain the registers is imposed on a manager and not on the occupier. An occupier cannot, therefore, be held liable for the failure of the manager to comply with the requirements of Ss. 62 and 83 and R. 91. The Occupier cannot be said to have a guilty mind when he is not charged with the duty of maintaining the registers.” It is also evident that the learned trial Court imposed fine beyond its jurisdiction. The learned State Industrial Court has minutely appreciated the provisions of the Act, 1948 and guideline of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and passed impugned order and rightly acquitted 6 respondent No. 2 and also modified the sentence of respondent No. 1. Thus, looking to the limited scope of revision, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Ex consequenti, the revision is without any merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju