APHC010167662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2488/2026 Between: 1. MR BIDDAPPA PONNAPPA BITTIANDA, AGE-57 YEARS,S/O. PONNAPPA MUTHANNA BITTIANDA, OCCUPIER,M/S. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,DOWLESWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. MR M V ANIL KUMAR, AGE- 50 YEARS,S/O. VENKATESHA MURTHY, MANAGER,M/S. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,DOWLESWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Inspector of Factories,Rajamahendravaram.Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,High Court, Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.150 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. 2. Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Petitioner/Accused No.1 is the occupier and Accused No.2 is the Manager of the factory. He submits that an accident occurred on 24.09.2024, wherein an employee of the factory, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, sustained grievous injuries resulting in the amputation of his leg. He further submits that immediately after the occurrence of the accident, Accused No.2, being the Manager of the factory, informed the Inspector of Factories on the very same day. The Inspector of Factories conducted the first inspection on 25.09.2024 and a second inspection on 26.09.2024. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the Inspector of Factories on 11.11.2024, to which Petitioner/Accused No.2 submitted a reply on 13.11.2024. 3. It is further submits that the Respondent lodged a complaint on 21.12.2024 without obtaining prior sanction from the Government as mandated under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for brevity, „the Act‟), as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No.13 of 2015 with effect from 26.11.2015. It is submitted that the complaint was filed in a hurried manner without securing the requisite sanction. It is further submitted that the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 28.10.2025, whereas the sanction order was granted on 05.04.2025, i.e., after a lapse of nearly six months from the date of the alleged occurrence. Ultimately, it is urged that in view of the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of prior sanction, this Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Petition and quash the proceedings. 4. Sri A. Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are untenable both on facts and in law. It is submitted that the accident dated 24.09.2024 resulted in grievous injuries to the workman, culminating in amputation of his leg, and the same clearly discloses serious violations of the safety provisions under „the Factories Act‟. The plea of the Petitioners that the injured employee was under the influence of alcohol does not absolve the management of its statutory responsibility to safe working environment and to ensure strict compliance with safety norms within the factory premises. It is further submitted that the inspections conducted by the Inspector of Factories on 25.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 revealed certain lapses, and the subsequent notice issued on 11.11.2024 and the reply dated 13.11.2024 form part of the statutory process leading to prosecution. The material collected during inspection prima facie establishes contraventions attributable to the occupier and the Manager of the factory. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 5. With regard to the contention relating to sanction under Section 105 of „the Act.,‟ it is submitted that the sanction was indeed accorded by the competent authority on 05.04.2025. The mere fact that the complaint was presented prior to or around the time of sanction does not vitiate the proceedings, as the requirement of sanction is procedural in nature and stands satisfied before the Court proceeded substantially with the matter. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on 28.10.2025 is subsequent to the grant of sanction, thereby curing any alleged irregularity. It is also submitted that the delay in obtaining sanction is administrative and does not enure to the benefit of the Petitioners, particularly when the offence involves serious injury to a workman and violations affecting public safety. 6. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegations in the complaint, coupled with the inspection reports and other material, clearly make out a prima facie case against the Petitioners. At this stage, the Petitioners are seeking to raise disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C‟. In view of that, it is prayed that the Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M/s. Changer Vidyut Kranti Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein it was held that a complaint under “the Act” filed by the Inspector does not require prior sanction in writing as contemplated under Section 105(1) of „the Act‟. It was further held that the limitation for filing such a complaint is three 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 months as prescribed under Section 106 of „the Act.,‟ and the same cannot be extended by invoking Section 470(3) of „the Cr.P.C‟. The Act is a self- contained code, and Section 106 of „the Act.,‟ specifically deals with the limitation for taking cognizance. Therefore, the provisions of „the Cr.P.C./BNSS.,‟ relating to limitation for taking cognizance are not applicable to offences under „the Factories Act‟. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 9. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 10. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.150/2025 against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?" 11. The Petitioner No.1 being occupier of the factory has appointed the Petitioner No.2 as Manager of the factory. The alleged offence is punishable up to two years as per Section 92 of „the Act‟. Section 92 of „the Act.,‟ provides for general penalty for offences. Section 105 of „the Act.,‟ deals with the issue of taking cognizance. There is an amendment to Section 105 of „the Act.,‟ in the Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh Amendment reads as under: 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 “No Court shall take cognizance of the any offence under this Act an complaint made by an Inspector with the prevision sanction in writing by State Government. This amendment shall brought to the Act vide Act No.13 of 2015 with effect from 26.11.2025.” 12. Section 106 of „the Act‟ lays down the limitation for prosecution. It provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the provisions of „the Act.,‟ unless the complaint is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. 13. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, the alleged accident took place on 24.09.2024, wherein one of the employees of the factory, allegedly in an inebriated condition, improperly handled the machinery and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in the amputation of his leg. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the medical expenses for the treatment and amputation were borne by the factory. It is an undisputed fact that Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 informed the Inspector about the accident on 24.09.2024 itself. 14. Pursuant to the information received, the Inspector of Factories inspected the factory premises for the first time on 25.09.2024. It is also not in dispute that the Inspector conducted a second inspection on 26.09.2024. Thereafter, the Inspector of Factories issued a notice to Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 on 11.11.2024, to which Accused No.2 submitted a reply on 13.11.2024. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 15. There is no gainsaying that the complaint was lodged by the Inspector of Factories on 21.12.2024 without obtaining prior sanction from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Section 105 of „the Act.,' as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment, clearly mandates that the Inspector shall file a complaint only with the previous sanction in writing of the State Government, and only thereafter the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence. In the absence of such sanction, there is an embargo on taking cognizance. 16. Admittedly, the Government accorded sanction on 05.04.2025. By that time, the Inspector of Factories had already filed the complaint, thereby deviating from and violating the mandatory requirement under Section 105 of „the Act‟. Section 7 of „the Act.,‟ authorizes the occupier (Accused No.1) to nominate a Manager, and accordingly, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 was nominated as the Manager of the factory. 17. Though the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 28.10.2025, by which date sanction had been granted, the very filing of the complaint stands vitiated, as it was instituted without obtaining the requisite prior sanction from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Further, Section 106 of „the Act‟ prescribes the limitation for prosecution and mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence unless the complaint is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. In the present case, the Inspector had knowledge of the accident on 24.09.2024 itself. Therefore, the complaint 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 ought to have been filed, after obtaining proper sanction, within three months therefrom. 18. However, the sanction was granted only on 05.04.2025, i.e., after a lapse of more than six months from the date of knowledge of the offence, and cognizance was taken on 28.10.2025, i.e., after a substantial delay from the date of occurrence. 19. Viewed from any angle, the complaint is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of prior sanction from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the subsequent sanction does not cure the defect. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.150 of 2025 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date :06.04.2026 KMS 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.2488 of 2026 Dated 06.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No: 2488 of 2026 Date: 06.04.2026 KMS 111