Factory Safety Violations Covered Under Factories Act Can't Attract Parallel Prosecution Under S.304-A IPC: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when the allegations against factory officials relate entirely to violation of safety measures governed by the Factories Act, 1948, they cannot simultaneously be prosecuted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for the same incident. Allowing a criminal petition filed by the factory Supervisor (A1) and Occupier (A2), Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy quashed the criminal proceedings pending against them for the offence under Section 304-A IPC which penalizes causing death by a rash or negligent act. Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy observed:"In the present case, the allegations against the petitioners are entirely founded on alleged non-compliance of safety requirements in the factory, such as non-provision of Hot Metal Splash Impact Resistance Cabin to the EOT Crane, failure to prevent stagnated water near the pit side and non- provision of protective equipment to the workers. The report submitted by the Inspector of Factories also specifically refers to violation of safety measures contemplated under the Factories Act, 1948. Except stating that A1 is Supervisor and A2 is Occupier of the factory, no specific overt act constituting rash or negligent conduct independently attracting Section 304-A IPC is attributed against them.Therefore, permitting continuation of the present prosecution under Section 304-A IPC on the same set of allegations would amount to parallel prosecution for the very same cause of action, which is impermissible in law."The case arose from the death of a crane operator employed at a steel manufacturing factory. In October 2014, while the deceased was on night duty, hot molten iron being lifted through a ladle spilled, causing severe burn injuries that resulted in his death. Following the incident, a case was registered under Section 304-A IPC against the factory officials.During the investigation, the Inspector of Factories reported that the Occupier, Manager and Supervisor were responsible for ensuring compliance with safety measures in the factory. The report alleged that they had failed to provide essential safety measures, including a Hot Metal Splash Impact Resistance Cabin for the crane, prevention of water stagnation near the pit area, and protective equipment such as heat-resistant clothing, gloves and face shields for workers.Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the allegations were covered exclusively by the Factories Act and that the Occupier and Manager had already been convicted and fined Rs. 70,000 under the Act. They contended that the subsequent prosecution under Section 304-A IPC for the same incident was barred by double jeopardy and amounted to an abuse of process.The prosecution maintained that the material disclosed prima facie negligence resulting in the worker's death and justified prosecution under Section 304-A IPC.Accepting the petitioners' contention, the High Court held that the alleged omissions were governed by the Factories Act and did not disclose any independent act attracting Section 304-A IPC. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.Case Title: Naresh Rai & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 6113 of 2021Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Madhu Sudhan P.Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Factory Safety Violations Covered Under Factories Act Can't Attract Parallel Prosecution Under S.304-A IPC: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

Factory Safety Violations Covered Under Factories Act Can't Attract Parallel Prosecution Under S.304-A IPC: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers