S M Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

,
Appeal (crl.) 852-855 of 2001,
Special Leave Petition (civil) 1566-69 of 2000

Facts of the Case

Complaint filed by the Factories Inspecter based on his factory visit where he saw a factory worker
working beyond the working hours. The petitioner was the ‘occupier’ under the Factories Act, 1948.

Main contentions of the Complainant

1. Section 63 of Factories Act had been violated by permitting the worker in question to work
without complying with the provisions of the section i.e. the note which needed to be put
against his name in the attendance register of the adult workers had not been put by the
occupier; and, likewise, the note which was needed to be put in the Form no. 14 against his
name, had not been put. These omissions are offences which attracts punishment under Section
92 of the Factory Act
Main contention of the Petitioner

1. The complaint should be quashed : there has been compliance with Section 63 of the Act and the
requirements of Form 14 have also been met with.

Applicable Laws

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 61, 62, 63 of Factories Act, 1948

Critical analysis

While the Court’s intention to maintain the spirit of the legislation i.e. the Factories Act, cannot be
questioned, the rationale that has been put forth for not quashing the complaint i.e. ‘It is not fair or
reasonable to nullify the efforts of the Inspector’ may be questioned.

Undoubtedly, the objective of appointing Inspectors by the State Government in terms of the
provisions of the State Rules is to facilitate the implementation of the different provisions of the
legislation i.e. the Factories Act. However, is the Inspector justified in classifying the act as a
violation of Section 63 of the Act and hence an offence punishable under Section 92? Could the
Inspector have considered the possibility of issuing a warning to the Occupier and letting the matter
pass? Was it necessary to classify the act as a violation of Section 63 of the Act? Has the Inspector
gone for an over-kill, considering that the annexure to the complaint mentions a 2-hour period of
overtime; the visit of the Inspector has happened during this overtime period. Thus, has the Inspector
 applied or not applied sound judgment in framing the charges against the Occupier?

A fine balance should be maintained between maintaining the sanctity of a Statute on the one hand
and the liberty of an individual being framed , on the other hand. Undoubtedly, whatever action is
taken should be in the interest of justice.

Let us also analyze the past judgments of the Court in the context of quashing of complaints / FIR,
and see how it could be applied to the present case.

Court’s observations and judgments

Only in the event that not quashing the complaint / FIR would amount to an abuse of the Court’s
process, should the complaint / FIR be quashed at the initial stage i.e. it is only in exceptional cases
should the FIR be quashed. This demonstrates that the Courts have placed great emphasis on the
importance of this instrument in the process of justice, to the extent of ruling that if the complaint
makes even an indirect reference to the offence, the Courts should not intervene in the investigation of
the offence. However, no investigation will be permitted if no offence is disclosed, as, in such a
situation there is unwarranted harassment of a party whose property and liberty is likely to be affected.
This has been stated unequivocally in State of West Bengal and Others v. Swapan Kumar Guha
and Others 2 State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.3 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhi & Ors. 4 Thus, this calls for a delicate act of balancing the interests of justice and the liberty of
an individual.

On the other hand, if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not interfere with the investigation and
will allow the investigation to happen even in the situation that the Police may have acted based on
mere suspicion of commission of a cognizable offence and this offence is disclosed in the FIR. King
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed:1.

Conclusion

The decision to quash or not quash a complaint / FIR is a delicate one wherein the Court has to balance
the interests of justice and liberty of the individual. In the current case, in order to respect the intent of
the Statute – i.e. the intent of the Factories Act being to protect workers’ interests, the liberty of the
Occupier was compromised upon, to a certain extent.