Download management of operations book and more Study notes Marketing Management in PDF only on Docsity!
UNIT 7 GENERAL PENALTY FOR OFFENCES
Structure
7.1 Introduction Objectives 7.2 General Penalty for offences Under Section 92 to 106a 7.2.1 Section 92. General Penalty for Offences.- 7.2.2 Section 93. Liability of Owner of Premises in Certain Circumstances. 7.2.3 Section 94. Enhanced Penalty After Previous Conviction.- 7.2.4 Section 95. Penalty for Obstructing Inspector.- 7.2.5 Section 96. Penalty for Wrongfully Disclosing Results of Analysis Under Section 91.- 7.2.6 Section 96A. Penalty for Contravention of the Provisions of Sections 41B, 41C and 41H.- 7.2.7 Section 97. Offences by Workers.- 7.2.8 Section 98. Penalty for Using False Certificate of fitness.- 7.2.9 Section 99. Penalty for permitting double employment of child.- 7.2.10 Section 101. Exemption of occupier or manager from liability in certain cases.- 7.2.11 Section 102. Power of court to make orders.- 7.2.12 Section 103. Presumption as to employment.- 7.2.13 Section 104. Onus as to age.- 7.2.14 Section 104A. Onus of proving limits of what is practicable, etc. – 7.2.15 Section 105. Cognizance of offences.- 7.2.16 Section 106. Limitation of prosecution.- 7.2.17 Section 106A. Jurisdiction of a court for entertaining proceedings, etc., for offence.- 7.3 Factories the Power Presses Regulations 1965 7.4 Case Study 7.5 Let Us Sum Up 7.6 Key Words 7.7 Self-Assessment Questions. 7.8 Answer to SAQ’S
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Under the law, such punishments for breaking a law, rule or contract are called ‘Penalties’. Penalties vary with the level of damage to the organization, repetition of mistakes, etc. Factories define certain rules and regulations in order to maintain discipline in the factory.
Explanation. — In this section and in section 94 “serious bodily injury” means an Injury which involves, or in all probability will involve, the permanent loss of the use Of, or permanent injury to, any limb or the permanent loss of, or injury to, sight or Hearing, or the fracture of any bone, but shall not include, the fracture of bone or Joint (not being fracture of more than one bone or joint) of any phalanges of the Hand or foot).
Objectives
After studying this unit, you should able to understand the basics of general penalty. know the rules and regulations to maintain the discipline in the factory. aware the various sections general penalty for offences. know the various case studies.
7.2 GENERAL PENALTY FOR OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 92 TO 106A
7.2.1 Section 92. General penalty for offences.-
Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made there under or of any order in writing given there under, the occupier or manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with as further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued.
Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made there under or under section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than twenty- five thousand rupees in the case of an accident causing death, and five thousand rupees in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury.
Explanation - in this section and in section 94 "serious bodily injury" means an injury which involves, or in all probability will involve, the permanent loss of the use of, or permanent injury to, any limb or the permanent loss of, or injury to sight or hearing, or the fracture of any bone, but shall not include, the fracture of bone or joint (not being fracture of more than one bone or joint) of and phalanges of the hand or foot.
7.2.2 Section 93. Liability of owner of premises in certain circumstances:
(1).Where in any premises separate building are leased to different occupiers for use as separate factories, the owner of the premises shall be responsible for the provision and maintenance of common facilities and services, such as approach roads, drainage, water supply, lighting and sanitation.
(2).The Chief Inspector shall have, subject to the control of the State Government, power to issue order, to the owner of the premises in respect of the carrying out of the provisions of sub-section (1).
(3).Where in any premises, independent or self-contained floor or fiats are leased to different occupiers for use as separate factories, the owner of the premises shall be liable as if he was the occupier or manager of a factory, for any contravention of the provisions of this Act in respect of - a. Latrines, urinals and washing facilities in so far as the maintenance of the common supply of water for those purpose in concerned; b.Fencing of machinery and plant belonging to the owner and not specifically entrusted to the custody or use of an occupier; c. Safe means of access to the floors or flats and maintenance and cleanliness of staircases and common passages; d.Precaution, in case of fire; e. Maintenance of hoists and lifts; and f. Maintenance of any other common facilities provided in the premises.
(2).For the purpose of sub-section (1), no cognizance shall be taken of any conviction made more than two years before the commission of the offence for which the person is subsequently being convicted.
7.2.4 Section 95. Penalty for obstructing inspector.-
Whoever willfully obstructs an Inspector in the exercise of any power conferred on him by or under this Act, or fails to produce on demand by an Inspector any register or other documents kept in his custody in pursuance of this Act or of any rules made there under, or conceals or prevents any workers, in a factory from appearing before, or being examined by, an inspector, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
7.2.5 Section 96. Penalty for wrongfully disclosing results of analysis under section 91.-
Whoever, except in so far as it may be necessary for the purposes of a prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act, publishes or discloses to any person the results of an analysis made under section 91, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
7.2.6 Section 96A. Penalty for contravention of the provisions of sections 41B, 41C and 41H.-
(1).Whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of sections 41B, 41C or 41H or the rules made there under, shall, in respect of such failure or contravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues, after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention. (2).If the failure or contravention referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years.
7.2.7 Section 97. Offences by workers.-
(1).Subject to the provisions of section 111, if any worker employed in a factory contravenes any provision of this Act or any rules or orders made there under, imposing any duty or liability on workers, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Whoever knowingly uses or attempts to use, as a certificate of fitness granted to himself. (2).Where a worker is convicted of an offence punishable under sub- section (1) the occupier or manager of the factory shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence in respect of that contravention, unless it is proved that he failed to take all reasonable measures for its prevention.
7.2.8 Section 98. Penalty for using false certificate of fitness.-
Under section 70, a certificate granted to another person under that section, or who, having procured such a certificate, knowingly allow it to be used, or an attempt to use it to be made by, another person, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term, which may extend to two months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
7.2.9 Section 99. Penalty for permitting double employment of child.-
If a child works in a factory on any day on which he has already been working in another factory, the parent or guardian of the child or the person having custody of or control over him or obtaining any direct benefit from his wages, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, unless it appears to the Court that the child so worked without the consent or connivance of such parent, guardian or person.
Section 100. - Omitted by Act 20 of 1987
7.2.10 Section 101. Exemption of occupier or manager from liability in certain cases.-
Where the occupier or manager of a factory is charged with an offence punishable under this Act he shall be entitled, upon complaint duly made by him and on giving to the prosecutor not less than three clear days' notice in writing of his intention so to do, to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge; and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, the occupier or manager of the factory, as the case may be, proves to the satisfaction of the Court.
a. That he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act, and b. That the said other person committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent or connivance,
That other person shall be convicted of the offence and shall be liable to the like punishment as if he was the occupier or manager of the factory, and the occupier or manager, as the case may be, shall be, discharged from any liability under this Act in respect of such offence:
Provided that in seeking to prove as afore said, the occupier or manager of the factory, as the case may be, may be examined on oath, and his evidence and that of any witness whom he calls in his support, shall be subject to cross- examination on behalf of the person he charges as the actual offender and by the prosecutor:
Provided further that, if the person charged as the actual offender by the occupier or manager, cannot be brought before the court at the time appointed for hearing the charge, the court shall adjourn the hearing from time to time for a period not exceeding three months and if by the end of the period the person charged as the actual offender cannot still be brought before the court, the court shall proceed to hear the charge against the occupier or manager and shall, if the offence be proved, convict the occupier or manager.
7.2.11 Section 102. Power of court to make orders.-
- Where the occupier or manager of a factory is convicted of an offence punishable under this Act the court may, in addition to awarding any punishment, by order in writing require him, within a period specified in the order (which the court may, if it thinks fit and on application in such- behalf, from time to time extend) to take such measures as may be so specified for remedying the matters in respect of which the offence was committed.
a. In the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues; b. Where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.
7.2.17 Section 106A. Jurisdiction of a court for entertaining proceedings, etc., for offence.-
For the purposes of conferring jurisdiction on any court in relation to an offence under this Act or the rules made there under in connection with the operation of any plant, the place where the plant is for the time being situate, shall be deemed to be the place where such offence has been committed.
7.3 FACTORIES THE POWER PRESSES REGULATIONS
Made - - - 19th July 1965 laid before Parliament 28th July 1965 Coming into Operation 20th July 1966
SAQ 1
- In the landmark judgment of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) V. Union of lndia, Supreme Court while declaring transgender people as 'third gender' observed (a) The Constitution of India will be equally applicable to transgender people (b) The right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third-gender (c) Reservations to be given in admissions to educational institutions and jobs (d) all of the above
- Recently Union of India vs. Sriharan dealt with (a) Compensation (b) State power of remission (c) Restitution (d) Probation
- Which Article of the Indian Constitution deals with the stability of the Union of lndia? (a) Article 100 (b) Article 200 (c) Article 300 (d) Article 330
The Minister of Labour by virtue of the powers conferred on him by sections 76 and 180(6) and (7) of the Factories Act 1961(a) and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf; and after publishing, pursuant to Schedule 4 to the said Act of 1961, notice of the proposal to make the Regulations and not having received any objection to the draft in regard to which he is required by the said Schedule to direct an inquiry to be held,
Hereby makes the following special Regulations:—
Citation and commencement
These Regulations may be cited as the Power Presses Regulations 1965 and shall come into operation on 20th July 1966.
Interpretation:
2.—(1) The Interpretation Act 1889(b) shall apply to the interpretation of these Regulations as it applies to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.
In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say—
“Approved”? Means approved for the time being by certificate of the Chief Inspector;
“Clutch mechanism” means in relation to a power press a device designed to impart when required the movement of the flywheel to any tool;
“Factory” includes any premises to which these Regulations apply;
“fixed fencing” means fencing provided for the tools of a power press being fencing which has no moving parts associated with or dependent upon the mechanism of a power press and includes that part of a closed tool which acts as a guard;
“*power press’? means a press or a press brake which in either case is used wholly or partly for the working of metal by means of tools or for the purpose of die proving, being a press or a press brake which is power driven and which embodies a flywheel and a clutch mechanism;
“The principal Act’? Means the Factories Act 1961 as amended by or under any other Act; and
“Safety device” means the fencing and any other safeguard provided for the tools of a power press in pursuance of requirements imposed by or under the principal Act.
9 & 10 Eliz. 2 c. 34. (b) 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63.
Application and operation of Regulations:
3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this Regulation, these Regulations apply to the following premises in which any power press is used, that is to say, all factories and all premises to which the provisions of the principal Act are applied by section 123(1) of that Act (which relates to electrical stations).
Nothing in these Regulations shall apply as respects any power press when used for working hot metal or which is not being used for working cold metal and is intended next to be used for working hot metal.
The provisions of these Regulations are in addition to and not in substitution for or in diminution of other requirements imposed by or under the principal Act.
No power press shall be used unless it has been thoroughly examined and tested by a competent person in the case of a power press on which the tools are fenced exclusively by means of fixed fencing within the immediately preceding period of twelve months; or in any other case, within the immediately preceding period of six months.
No power press shall be used unless every safety device (other than fixed fencing) thereon has within the immediately preceding period of six months when in position on that power press, been thoroughly examined and tested by a competent person.
The competent person carrying out an examination and test under the foregoing provisions of this Regulation shall make a report of the examination and test in the approved form and containing the approved particulars and every such report shall within fourteen days of the completion of the examination and test be entered in or attached to a register kept for the purposes of this Regulation.
Defects disclosed during a thorough examination and test
6.—(1) Where any defect is disclosed in any power press or in any safety device by any examination and test under Regulation 5 and, in the opinion of the competent person carrying out the examination and test, either the said defect is a cause of danger to employed persons and in consequence the power press or safety device (as the case may be) ought not to be used until the said defect has been remedied; or the said defect may become a cause of danger to employed persons and in consequence the power press or safety device (as the case may be) ought not to be used after the expiration of a specified period unless they said defect has been remedied, such defect shall, as soon as possible after the completion of the examination and test, be notified in writing by the competent person to the occupier of the factory and, in the case of a defect falling within sub-paragraph (0d) of this paragraph such notification shall include the period within which, in the opinion of the competent person, the defect ought to be remedied.
(2) Where any such defect is notified to the occupier in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Regulation the power press or safety device (as the case may be) having the said defect shall not be used— (a) in the case of a defect falling within sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (1) of this Regulation until the said defect has been remedied; and
(3) In the case of a defect falling within sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph (1) of this: Regulation, after the expiration of the said specified period unless the said defect has been remedied.
As soon as is practicable after any defect of which notification has been given under paragraph (1) of this Regulation has been remedied, a record ‘shall be made by or on behalf of the occupier stating the measures by which and the date on which the defect was remedied. The said record, where practicable, shall be made in an approved form on the document containing the report of the examination and test under Regulation 5 during which the defect was disclosed, or, in any other case, shall be made in writing and attached as soon as is practicable to the said report.
Inspection and test of safety devices:
7.—(1) No power press shall be used after the setting, re-setting or adjustment of the tools thereon unless a person appointed or authorized for the purpose under Regulation 4 has inspected and tested every safety device
thereon while it is in position on the said power press and has given a certificate in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Regulation:
Provided that an inspection, test and certificate as aforesaid shall not be required where any adjustment of the tools has not caused or resulted in any alteration to or disturbance of any safety device on the power press and if, after the adjustment of the tools, the safety devices remain, in the opinion of such a person as aforesaid, in efficient working order.
No power press shall be used after the expiration of the fourth hour of any working period unless between the times when the said power press last ceased to be used before the commencement of that. period and the expiration of the said fourth hour a person appointed or authorized for the purpose under Regulation 4 has inspected and tested (whether or not in pursuance of paragraph (1) of this Regulation) every safety device thereon while it is in position on the said power press and has given a certificate in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Regulation.
In this paragraph the expression “working period” means the daily hours worked in a factory or, in the case of a factory where a shift system is in operation, a shift.
Every certificate of inspection and test made under this Regulation shall contain sufficient particulars to identify every safety device inspected and tested and the power press on which that safety device was fitted at the time of the inspection and test shall state the date and time of the inspection and test shall be signed by the person carrying out the inspection and test; and shall state that every safety device on the said power press is in efficient working order In determining, for the purpose of giving a certificate of an inspection and test made under this Regulation or of forming an opinion for the purposes of the proviso to paragraph (1) of this Regulation, whether or not any safety device is in efficient working order, the person carrying out the inspection and test or forming the opinion shall not treat as a defect any defect in a safety device which at the time of the inspection and test is the subject of a notification in writing under Regulation 6(1) by virtue of which the use of the safety device may be continued during a specified period which has not then expired unless he is of the opinion that the said defect has then become a cause of danger to employed persons. *
(4) Every certificate of an inspection and test under this Regulation shall be kept available at or near the power press to which it relates for inspection by the persons employed until the expiration of the period during: which they said power press may be used in reliance upon that certificate and shall be preserved in the factory and kept available for a period of six months thereafter for inspection by any inspector.
Defects disclosed during an inspection and test:
8.—(1) Where it appears to any person as a result of any inspection and test carried out by him under Regulation 7 that any necessary safety device is not in position or is not properly in position on a power press or that any safety device which is in position on a power press is not in his opinion suitable, he shall notify the occupier or his agent forthwith.
Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this Regulation, where any detect is disclosed in a safety device by any inspection and test under Regulation 7, the person carrying out the inspection and test shall notify the occupier or his agent forthwith.
7.4 CASE STUDY
Hemant Madhusudan Nerurkar vs. State of Jharkhand and another
[Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2016 arising from SLP (Criminal) No. 6410/2015]
[Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2016 arising from SLP (Criminal) No. 6406/2015]
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.
Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
The controversy arising for adjudication emerges from the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), and the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 (as applicable to the State of Jharkhand). Insofar as the alleged violations committed by the appellants are concerned, a summary of the same stands recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, which is extracted hereunder:
"3. It appears that an inspection carried out in the Growth Shop of M/s Tata Steel Limited on 14.09.2013 and in course of inspection, it was found that in Fabrication Yard No.1 about 100 numbers of contract laborers engaged. However, on inquiry, it came to the notice of the Inspecting Team that though the Management took overtime service from them, but in terms of Factories Rules, 1950 (Form-10A) overtime slip not provided to them, which is violative of Rule 103A of the Factories Rules, 1950. The Inspecting Team further found that the contract laborers were not provided with leave book in Form-15 of the Factories Rules, which is violative of Rule 88 of Jharkhand Factories Rules,
- It is further alleged that on inspection of canteen, the following shortcomings defected:
(a) There is no partition for the female workers in the dining hall and service counter.
(b) Doors and windows of the canteen are not fly proof. (c) Menu Chart, rate and the names of members Canteen Managing Committee has not disclosed on the board.
(d) For washing of utensils no arrangement of hot water has been made."
Based on the above allegations, cognizance was taken against the occupier - Hemant Madhusudan Nerurkar (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2016 - arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6410 of 2015), and the manager -
III. Which of the following Constitutional Amendments provide for the formation of a National Judicial Appointments Commission? (a) The Constitution (97thAmendment) Act, 2012 (b) The Constitution (98th Amendment) Act, 2013 (c) The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 (d) The Constitution (100th Amendment) Act, 2015
Rupam Bhaduri ( the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2016 - arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6406 of 2015).
Keeping in mind the apparently trivial issues, on which proceedings were taken out against the appellants, this Court on the first date of hearing, i.e., on 14.08.2015, recorded the following order: "Heard Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Jharkhand. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the concerned Inspector shall verify the factory premises and find out whether the defects pointed out by him have been rectified or not. List the matter in the first week of September, 2015.
The Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh in the Cause List on the next date of hearing."
A perusal of the above order reveals that the entire purpose of passing the same, was to ensure that violations if any are rectified.
It seems, that the aforesaid course of action was taken on the basis of the decision rendered by this Court in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi and others, reported in (1970) 2 SCC 172, for the reason, that the appellants asserted that they needed to have been afforded an opportunity to cure the defects and irregularities found during the course of inspection, and only if they had failed to abide by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Rules, it would be open to the authorities to proceed against the appellants.
After 14.08.2015, the matter came up for consideration on 30.11.2015, on which date the motion Bench passed the following order: "It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has removed all the defects pertaining to infrastructure but two defects pertaining to contract labour are not yet been removed because the burden lies on the contractor under the law. Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State shall obtain instructions in this regard. Let the mater be listed in the third week of January, 2016."
A perusal of the above order reveals, that two defects pertaining to contract labour had not been removed. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it has been the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that these two allegations leveled against the appellants, were the responsibility of the contractor who had provided the contract labour and, none of the appellants.
Lastly, the matter came up for consideration on 27.4.2016, when this Court ordered as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) states, that the violation with reference to the contract labourers, depicted in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, will be rectified within four days from today, and that the matter may be taken up for hearing again on 4.5.2016.
List again on 4.5.2016."
In compliance with the directions issued by the motion Bench order dated 27.4.2016, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of both the appellants, affirming that the two defects pertaining to the contract labour have also been rectified.
(3) Any order in writing made there under.
It comprises both acts of omission and commission. The persons punishable under the Section are occupiers and managers, irrespective of the question as to who the actual offender is. The provision, is in consonance with the scheme of the Act to reach out to those who have the ultimate control over the affairs of the factory to see that the requirements for safety and welfare of the employees are fully and properly carried out besides carrying out various duties and obligations under the Act. Section 92 contemplates a joint liability of the occupier and the manager for any offence committed irrespective, of the fact as to who is directly responsible for the offence.
The fact that the notified/identified director is ignorant about the 'management' of the factory which has been entrusted to a manager or some other employee and is he not responsible for the contravention cannot absolve him of his liability. The identified /notified director is held vicariously liable for the contravention of the provisions of the Act, the rules made there under or of any order made in writing under it for the offender company, which is the occupier of the factory.
- Mr. Jain, Mr. Nariman and Mr. Tripathi, appearing for the appellants, however, argued that since Section 92 imposes a liability for imprisonment and/or fine, both on the occupier (the notified director) and the manager of the factory, jointly and severally, for the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any rule made there under or of any order in writing given there under, irrespective of the fact whether the occupier (the notified director) or manager, in respect of that contravention or that the contravention was not committed by him or was committed by any other person in the factory without his knowledge, consent or connivance, it is an unreasonable restriction.
Learned counsel argued that in criminal law, the doctrine of vicarious liability is unknown and if a director is to be punished for something of which he is not actually guilty, it would violate his fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It was urged that on account of advancement in science and technology, most of the companies, appoint professionally qualified men to run the factories and nominate such a person to be the 'occupier' of the factory and make him responsible for proper implementation of the provisions of the Act and it would, therefore, be harsh and unreasonable to hold any director of the company, who may be wholly innocent, liable for the contraventions committed under the Act etc. when he may be totally ignorant of what was going on in the factory, having vested the control of the affairs of the factory to such an officer or employee, by ignoring the liability of that officer or employee. The argument is emotional and attractive but not sound.
- The offences under the Act are not a part of general penal law but arise from the breach of a duty provided in a special beneficial social defense legislation, which creates absolute or strict liability without proof of any mens rea. The offences are strict statutory offences for which establishment of mens rea is not an essential ingredient.
The omission or commission of the statutory breach is itself the offence. Similar type of offences based on the principle of strict liability, which means liability without fault or mens rea, exist in many statutes relating to economic crimes as well as in laws concerning the industry, food adulteration, prevention of pollution etc.
In India and abroad 'Absolute offences' are not criminal offences in any real sense but acts which are prohibited in the interest of welfare of the public and the prohibition is backed by sanction of penalty. Such offences are generally knows as public welfare offences. A seven Judge Bench of this Court in R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills (AIR 1977 (SC), 2279, at page 2287: SCC p. 110, Para 19):
"Even here we may reject the notion that a penalty or a punishment cannot be cast in the form of an absolute or no-fault liability but must be proceeded by mens rea. The classical view that ' no mens rea no crime' has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea. Therefore, the contention that Section 37(1) fastens a heavy liability regardless or fault has no force......"
- What is made punishable under the Act is the 'blameworthy' conduct of the occupier which resulted in the commission of the statutory offence and not his criminal intent to commit that offence. The rule of strict liability is attracted to the offences committed under the Act and the occupier is held vicariously liable along with the Manager and the actual offender, as the case may be.
In view of the above declaration by this Court, we are of the view, that it is not possible for us to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, wherein the prayer made by the appellants for quashing the proceedings initiated against them, was declined. We therefore hereby confirm the same.
Despite our above conclusion, learned counsel for the appellants points out, that the factual position is clear, and that, rather than requiring the appellants to face a protracted trial, this Court may consider the appropriateness of imposing a reasonable punishment on the appellants, by accepting the aforesaid violations , summarized in paragraph 3 of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the respondents - State of Jharkhand, states that he has no objections to the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the allegations leveled against the appellants, we are satisfied, that in terms of the mandate of section 92 of the Act, ends of justice would be met, if a penalty of Rs.50, 000/- each is imposed on the appellants.
Ordered accordingly.
The aforesaid amount of penalty shall be deposited by the appellants before the trial Court, within four weeks from today.
The instant order shall also dispose of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in G.O. Case No. 252 of 2013, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seraikella, after the penalty amount is deposited by the appellants before the trial Court.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
......................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
......................J. [C. NAGAPPAN]
NEW DELHI; May 04,2016.
Item No.3 Court No.3 Section IIQ
Supreme Court of India
7.5 LET US SUM UP
Offence is the British spelling of offense, meaning "a punishable act." If you break a law for the first time, it's your first offence. The noun offence comes from the Latin word offend ere, which means “strike against.” Any time you break a law or a rule it is an offence against that law or rule. Offence in general means a breach of Law or Act or any illegal act and penalty is defined as the punishment for committing an offence. For effective implementation of the provisions for the factories act in the factories, certain provisions to take strict action against offenders are required. The penal provisions in many cases act as a deterrent while some provisions attract the wrath of the penal provisions even for a breach, although such an infraction of law could be a minor offence and not a venial breach of law. It is for this reason that the law maker in his wisdom has laid down general disciplines relating to penalty so as to enable the person vested with such powers does not overshoot those powers that are inherently vested in him. A penalty is a punishment imposed by law for committing an offence or failing to do something that was the duty of a party to do. While Courts have consistently laid down several guiding principles for the purpose of levy of penalties, it has been observed that the statutes are so drafted that several punitive penalties have now become mandatory.
7.6 KEY WORDS
General Penalty for Offences, rules and regulations, power of court, restitution, compensation, probation, state power of remission.
7.7 ANSWERS TO SAQS
SAQ 1.
I. (a) In the landmark judgment of National Legal Services Authority. II. (b) State power of remission. III. (a) Article 300.
SAQ 2
I. (d) All of the above. II. (d) All of the above. III. (c) The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014.
IV. The appointment of only lady principals or lady teachers in a Women,s College (a) Violative of Article 14 (b) ls not violative of Articte 14 (c) Violative subject to conditions (d) None of the above
SAQ 3
I. (b) Valsamma Paul V. Cochin University.
II. (b) Mandamus.
III. (b) English.
IV. (b) Is non violative of Article 14.
