1    

NON-REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1963 /2010  

Shri Subir Bose            …Appellant  

Versus  

Inspector of Factories,   represented by S. M. Paranjpe & Anr.            …Respondents      

J U D G M E N T  

INDU MALHOTRA, J.  

1. The appellant – Mr. Subir Bose, was the Managing Director of M/s.  

Berger Paints India Ltd. (the ‘Company’ for short) and resident of  

Kolkatta at the time of the offence..    

 2. On April 28, 2006 at about 11:20 hours fire had broken out at the  

factory premises of the company located at IDC Kundaim, Goa.   

There was no causality except that one Shri Tulsidas Dutta Palkar  

– a worker, had sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital  

and discharged after treatment on the same day.  

2    

3. On 28th June, 2006, Inspector of Factories, Altinho, Panaji, Goa filed  

a private complaint in discharge of official duties under Section 92  

of the Factories Act, 1948 (“Factories Act” for short) against the  

appellant – Managing Director of the Company, as the occupier, and  

Shri S.M. Lahiri – the Manager of the Company.  The allegations  

were that the company had been using the factory premises situated  

at Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa without proper  

licence/permission which was in contravention of Goa Factories  

Rules, 1945. It was also alleged that the accused has failed to take  

adequate measures to prevent explosion or ignition of inflammable  

substances as required under Sections 37 and 38 of the Factories  

Act.  

 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, who was the  

Managing Director, we were not inclined to interfere with the  

impugned order, which has affirmed the order taking cognizance for  

an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act as, prima facie, it  

does appear that the factory premises situated at Kundaim Industrial  

Estate, Kundaim, Goa was functioning without  a  

licence/permission.  The contention of the appellant that the factory  

premises was in the process of closure of its and operations would  

be a factual assertion made by the defence. This would require to

3    

be proved and established. However, on the question whether  

adequate measures were taken to prevent explosion or ignition of  

inflammable substance is concerned, learned counsel for the  

appellant has referred to, with some merit, the closure report filed  

by the Police in FIR No. 110 of 2006 under Sections 285 and 336 of  

the IPC registered against Shri S.M. Lahiri – Factory Manager, Shri  

Jayanta Bhattacharya – the Production Manager, Shri Bikas Pukait  

– the Shift-in-Charge, and Shri Tulsidas Datta Palkar – the worker.   

Interestingly, Shri Tulsidas Datta Palkar was the person who had  

sustained minor injuries and was taken to hospital and discharged  

on the same day after administering first aid.  The closure report  

was filed stating that it was an unfit case for filing of charge sheet as  

criminal charges were not made out.  The report was based on the  

opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor and was accepted by the  

Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Ponda, who is also the Magistrate  

who has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the  

Factories Act.  The complaint refers to violation of Sections 37 and  

38 of the Factories Act, albeit without giving specific particulars and  

details.  Hence, to this extent, the complaint is vague and does not  

disclose a specific violation.   

4    

5. The learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, has stated  

that the appellant would plead guilty and bring the litigation to a  

quietus by paying the maximum amount of fine that can be imposed.   

The prayer made was that punishment of imprisonment may not be  

imposed as the appellant is now more than 70 years of age, and at  

that time the company had six factories and more than eighty depots  

all over India.  The appellant was at the relevant time a permanent  

resident of Kolkatta.  Relegating the appellant to the trial Court  

would not serve any purpose and cause delay.   

 6. We are, in the peculiar facts of the present case, inclined to accept  

the  prayer noticing the fact that in the present case Shri Tulsidas  

Datta Palkar – the worker, who was himself, as per the FIR, one of  

the accused, had suffered minor injuries and was discharged from  

the hospital on the same day. The occurrence relates to the year  

2006, the present appellant is now over 70 years of age, and the  

trial itself would take years before it is decided.  In these  

circumstances, in the interests of justice, we accept the appellant’s  

prayer to accept his confession of guilt, and, accordingly, convict  

him under Section 92 of the Factories Act with Fine of Rs.1,00,000/-  

which should be deposited with the trial Court within four weeks from  

the date of this Judgment.  On failure to deposit the Fine, the

5    

appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight  

weeks.  

 7. The order and directions given hereinabove would dispose of the  

criminal proceedings against the appellant in Criminal Case No.  

9/LAB/2006/B pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class  

‘B’), Ponda, Goa.  As this order is passed in the peculiar facts and  

circumstances of this case, it is not to be treated as a precedent.    

The interim Order   dated 17.07.2019 passed by this Court  

stands vacated.  

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.  

…..……...........................J.  (INDU MALHOTRA)  

 ..….……..........................J.  

(SANJIV KHANNA)  New Delhi  September 24, 2019.