[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
K.N. Radhakrishnan vs Deputy Director on 16 April, 2025
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
1
SLP (Crl.) Nos.15246 & 15467/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.15246/2023
K.N. RADHAKRISHNAN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 15467/2023)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The prayer made before the High Court was for quashing the
complaints filed by the respondent before the Learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate at Krishnagiri, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (For short
“the Factories Act”). There were allegedly two accidents in the
establishment of TVS Motors Company Limited. Two employees got
injured on 22nd May, 2023 and 8th June, 2023. An inspection was
carried out by the factory inspector of the respondent on 16 th June,
2023 of the factory. A show cause notice was issued on 23 rd June,
2023, inviting attention of the present appellants to the alleged
breaches committed by them of the provisions of the Factories Act.
By the notice, the appellants were informed about the violations.
Signature Not Verified
Reply was called upon to be submitted within a period of seven
Digitally signed by
GEETA JOSHI
Date: 2025.04.30
16:26:52 IST
Reason:
days.
It appears that the appellants submitted a reply belatedly on
2
SLP (Crl.) Nos.15246 & 15467/2023
13th July, 2023. As reply was not filed within seven days, on the
basis of the show cause notice dated 23rd June, 2023, a document
called as ‘further action letter/order’ was issued by the Joint
Director. In the said ‘further action letter/order’, it is stated
that the discrepancies pointed out in the show cause notice were
not rectified and therefore, the appellants were informed that
appropriate action is being initiated against them.
One of the submissions made across bar was that this ‘further
action letter/order’ which constitutes an order passed by the
respondent was never served and therefore, the appellants were
deprived of their right of preferring an appeal against the said
order in accordance with Section 107 (1) of the Factories Act.
In terms of the order passed earlier, today a copy of the
‘further action letter/order’ dated 4th July, 2023 is produced on
record along with an extract of dispatch register maintained by the
respondent. It appears from the dispatch register that the ‘further
action letter/order’ was dispatched by ordinary post on 10 th July,
2023.
Our attention is invited to Rule 101 of the Tamil Nadu
Factories Rules, 1950 dealing with service of notices. It provides
that dispatch by post under a registered cover of a notice or order
shall be deemed sufficient service on the occupier/owner or manager
of the factory of such notice or order. In the present case, we
find that the ‘further action letter/order’ was dispatched not
under a registered cover but by ordinary post. Therefore, by
invoking Rule 101, the respondent cannot contend that the same was
3
SLP (Crl.) Nos.15246 & 15467/2023
served upon the appellants.
Therefore, even today, this Court can permit the appellants to
prefer an appeal under Section 107 (1) of the Factories Act against
the said ‘further action letter/order’.
However, more appropriate course will be to direct the
concerned authority of the respondent to consider the reply given
to the show cause notice and after giving an opportunity being
heard to the appellants to pass appropriate orders on the show
cause notice.
Therefore, the complaints will have to be quashed. It is
obvious that after order is passed on show cause notice, if the
same is not complied with by the appellants, it will give a fresh
cause of action to the respondent to file a complaint alleging
commission of offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act within
the time provided under Section 106 thereof.
Accordingly, we dispose of the appeals by passing the
following order:-
The complaints subject matter of challenge are hereby, quashed
not on merits, but to enable the concerned authority to pass
appropriate order on the show cause notice.
We, accordingly, direct the appropriate authority to pass an
order on the show cause notice dated 23rd June, 2023 after
considering reply submitted by the appellants and after giving them
opportunity of being heard.
Appropriate order shall be passed as expeditiously as
possible.
4
SLP (Crl.) Nos.15246 & 15467/2023
We clarify that in case the appellants fail to comply with the
order passed, subject to right of the appellants to prefer appeal
under Section 107 (1) of the Factories Act, it will be always open
for the respondent to file a fresh complaint alleging commission of
an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, as a fresh cause
of action for filing complaint will arise on the date of passing an
order on the show cause notice.
The impugned order of the High Court is, accordingly, set
aside. The appeals are partly allowed in above terms.
We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the
merits of the allegations made in the show cause notice and the
defence raised in the reply to the show cause notice.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………….………………………………………J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)……………….………………………………………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025
5
SLP (Crl.) Nos.15246 & 15467/2023
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15246/2023
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 30-10-2023 in
CRLOP No. 22824/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
K.N. RADHAKRISHNAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR Respondent(s)FOR ADMISSION
WITH
SLP(Crl.) No. 15467/2023 (II-C)
FOR ADMISSION and I.R.Date : 16-04-2025 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
For Appellant(s) Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Siya Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv.
Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR
Mr. V.m. Eashwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Mr. C.kranthi Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe appeals are partly allowed, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(GEETA JOSHI) (AVGV RAMU) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(The signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_2]
Source link