S.M. DATTAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

A                                   S.M. DATTA
                                          V.

                        STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

                                AUGUST 24, 2001

B                [A.P. MISRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.]


        Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S.482-Criminal Proceedings-
  Quashing of at the investigation stagec-Held, ought not to be quashed unless
C there is abuse of the process of law-Quashing of a complaint should rather
  be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.

         Labour Law:

           Factories Act, 1948/Gujarat Factory Rules, 1963-Sections 61, 62 and
D   63/Rules 87 and I JO-Requirement of Form 14 and 28-Jnspection of
    Factory-Adult worker found working beyond prescribed working hours without
    his name being displayed in notice Form 14-Provisions of Sections 61 and
    62 requiring notice of period of work and maintenance of Register-Non-
    compliance of-Criminal complaint against the occupier of the Factory-
    Revision Petition for quashing the criminal complaint-Dismissed by High
E   Court-Held, it would neither be fair nor reasonable at investigation stage to
    nu/life the efforts of Factories inspector under the Rules-Matter needs further
    inquiry and investigation-Thus, High Court was justified in not quashing the
    criminal complaint at the initial stage.

           Complainant-Factories Inspector, on inspection of a Factory found that
F   an adult worker in Group 'C' working after the prescribed working hours
    without his name appearing in the attendance register and in the Notice Form
    No. 14 displayed in the Factory. Consequently, a criminal complaint for
    violation of Section 63 of the Factories Act, 1948 was filed against the
    "Occupier" of the Factory before the Magistrate. Appellant, Vice Chairman
G   of the Company and "Occupier" of the Factory, filed a Criminal Revision
    Petition before the High Court for quashing the complaint at the investigation
    stage, which was dismissed. Hence these appeals.

          Dismissing the appeals, the Court

          HELD : I.I. The criminal complaints ought not to be quashed at the
H                                        140
                     S.M. DATTA v. STATE OF GUJARAT                          141
initial stages unless it is termed to be an abuse of the process of the Court. In   A
the instant case, the complaint in q_uestion cannot be so termed as such and
thus there is no justification for interference with the order passed by the High
Court. [155-G]

       1.2. Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to
be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the B
process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint
should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The
genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possibly be gone into and
the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of
the maker thereof. It is not a document which require decision with exactitude C
neither it is a document which requires mathematical accuracy and nicety,
but the same should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an
offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question
relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. There cannot possibly
be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the
initial stages and investigations wh kh ought not to be so scuttled. The First D
Information Report needs to be considered in the event of commission of a
cognizable offence if an offence stands disclosed in the First Information
Report, interest of justice requires further investigation by the Investigating
Agency. Investigation of an offence is within the exclusive domain of the police
department and not the law courts. In the event of disclosure of an offence, it E
is a duty incumbent to investigate into offence and bring the offender 'to books
in order to serve the cause of justice and it is only thereafter the Investigating
Officer submits the report to the Court with a prayer to take cognizance of
the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and it is on submission of the report
that the duty of the police ends, subject however to the provisions as contained
in Section 173(8) of the Code. There is thus a clear and well defined area of F
operation and demarcated function in the field of investigation of crimes and
its subsequent adjudication. While an offence if disclosed in the Fm ought
not to be thwarted at the initial stages, but in the event, however, the materials
do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted.
                                                              (147-E-F, 144-E-FJ G

      King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, (1944) 71IA203; AIR (1945) PC
18, relied on.

    State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors., (1982] 1
SCC 561; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 11992] Supp. 1 H
    142                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   SCC 335; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCTof Qelhi and Ors., (1999) Crl.L.J. (1833)
    and State of Bihar and Anr. v. JAC Saldanha.and Ors., (1980) 1 SCC 554,
    referred to.

           2. Section 61 of the Factories Act, 1948 requires that every factory shall
    maintain and display a notice of period of work of adult workers before hand.
B   Similarly even a cursory look to Section 62 of the Act, the requirement to
    maintain a register of the adult workers to be available cannot be doubted in
    any way. Section 63 of the Act provides that the hours of work of an adult
    worker should correspond with the notice under Section 61 and register under
    Section 62. Rule 87 of the Gujarat Factories Rule, 1963 prescribes that the
C   Notice of period of work for adult workers shall be in Form No. 14 which in
    turn prescribes different periods of work for adult workers with details of
    male and female employees, description of groups, working days and partial
    working days alongwith the name of the factory, place where the same is
    located and the district. In the instant case, the Factories Inspector's complaint
    states that a worker was found present in the list of adult workers register
D   kept in the factory in Form No.28 wherein the attendance appears, but Form
    No. 14 as displayed in the factory's premises does not contain the name of
    the said worker, as regards the working hours. Thus compliance with Form
    28 is not in dispute but compliance with Form 14 and entries to be made
    therein 'before hand' needs a further scrutiny of facts which at the
E   investigation stage of the proceedings cannot be gone into. Thus, it would
    neither be fair nor reasonable at this stage to nullify the efforts of the Inspector
    under the Rules. The matter needs further inquiry and investigation as to the
    factum of entry being made before hand in the register maintained in terms
    of Section 61 of the Act. It is too early in the day to say that there would not
    be even a possibility of non-compliance of Section 63 which in turn envisages
F   non-compliance of Sections 61 and 62 of the Factories Act.
                                                          (153-C; 154-8-C; 155-D-F)

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
    852-855 of 2001.

G        From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2000 of the Gujarat High
    Court in Crl.M.A. No. 2472-75 of 1990.

         D.A. Dave, R.N. Karanjawala, Siddharth Dave, Ms. Julie Buragohain
    and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala for the Appellant.

H         R.P. Bhat, Jatin Jhaveri, Ms. Anu Sawhney and Ms. Hemantika Wahi
              S.M. DATT Av. STATE OF GUJARAT [BANERJEE,J.]                     143
for the Respondents.                                                                   A
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      BANERJEE, J. Leave granted.

        Since the decision of Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed King                 B
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, (1944) (71) IA 203: AIR 1945 PC 18 and
till this day there is existing one salutory principle that in normal circumstances,
the law courts would not thwart any investigation and criminal proceedings
initiated must be allowed to have its own course under the provisions of the
Code. The powers of the police ought to stand unfettered to investigate cases
where they suspect or even have reasons to suspect the commission of a                 C
cognizable offence and the First Information Report (F.l.R.) discloses of such
offence .. The Judicial Committee in the decision of Nazir Ahmed (supra)
observed:

        "In their LordshiP.'s opinion, however, the more serious aspect of the
        case is to be found in the resultant interference by the court with the        D
        duties of the police. Just as it is essential that every one accused of
        a crime should have free access to a court of justice so that he may
        be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is
        charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should
        not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province       E
        and into which the law imposes on them the 'duty of inquiry. In India,
        as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police
        to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without
        requiring any authority from the judicial authorities and it would, as
        their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held
        possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the        F
        inherent jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the judiciary and
        the police .are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination
        of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only
        to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always,
        of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate    G
        case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code
        to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the
        present, however, the court's functions begin when a charge is
        preferred before it, and not until then."

      It is paramount to note however that the observations of Lord Porter in          H
    144                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Nazir Ahmed stands qualified by inclusion of the following:

            "No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more, if no
            offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no authority
            to undertake an investigation."

B          The qualified statement of the Judicial Committee however stands noted
    in Sanchaita Investment State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar
    Guha and Ors., [1982] I SCC 561. Incidentally, Sanchaita Investment and
    subsequent decisions including Bhajan Lal State of Haryana and Ors. v.
    Bhajan Lal and Ors., [1992] Supp I SCC 335 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
    of Delhi and Ors., ( 1999) Crl .L.J. 1833 in one tune stated that if an offence
C   is disclosed the Court will not interfere with an investigation and will permit
    investigation into the offence alleged to have been committed. If however the
    materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be
    permitted.

          The approach of this Court and the law as laid down by the Judicial
D Committee in Nazir Ahmad cannot but be termed to be in accordance with
    the principles of justice. While liberty of an individual are "sacred and
    sacrosanct" and it is a bounden obligation of the Court to protect them but
    in the event of commission of a cognizable offence and an offence stand
    disclosed in the First Information Report, interest of justice requires further
E   investigation by the Investigating Agency. Needless to record that investigation
    of an offence is within the exclusive domain of the police department and not
    the law courts. In the event of disclosure of an offence, it is a duty incumbent
    to investigate into offence and bring the offender to books in order to serve
    the cause of justice and it is only thereafter the Investigating Officer submits
    the report to the Court with a prayer to take cognizance of the offence under
F   Section 190 of the Cr.P.Code and it is on submission of the report that the
    duty of the police ends, subject however to the provisions as contained in
    Section 173 (8) of the Code. There is thus a clear and well defined area of
    operation and demarcated function in the field of investigation of crimes and
    its subsequent adjudication. In this context. reference may be made to the
G   decision of this Court in State of Bihar and Anr. v. JAC Saldanha and Ors.,
    [ 1980] 1 sec 554.

           While an offence if disclosed in the FIR ought not to be thwarted at the
    initial stages, but in the event however, the materials do not disclose an
    offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. It is in this context
H   this Court in Sanchaita Investment (supra) observed:
     S.M. DATTA v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BANERJEE, J.]                145
  "In my opinion, the legal position is well settled. The legal position A
appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the court will not normally
interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit
investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however,
the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should
normally be permitted. The observations of the Judicial Committee
and the observations of this Court in the various decisions which I B
have earlier quoted, make this position abundantly clear. The
propositions enunciated by the Judicial Committee and this Court in
the various decisions which I have earlier noted, are based on sound
principles of justice. Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation
into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, C
however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted,
as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed,
will result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and
property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property
of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the court zealously
guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the D
purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving
an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper
 investigation in the interests of justice becomes necessary to collect
materials for establishing the offence and for bringing the offender to
book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an E
offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the
consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment
of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that
a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must
be punished for the same. If the court interferes with the proper
 investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence F
will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the
society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this
principle that the court normally does not interfere with the
 investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. The
decisions on which Mr. Chatterjee has relied are based on this sound G
principle, and in all these cases an offence had been disclosed. Relying
on the well settled and sound principle that the court should not
 interfere with an investigation into an offence at the stage of
 investigation and should allow the investigation to be completed, this
 Court had made the observations in the said decisions which I have
 earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the sound principles of H
     146                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           justice. The decisions relied on by Mr. Chatterjee, do not lay down
             as it cannot possibly be laid down as a broad proposition of law, that
             an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will
             not be prevented by the court at the stage of investigation, even if no
             offence is disclosed. While adverting to this specific question as to
             whether an investigation can go on even if no offence is disclosed,
B            the Judicial Committee in the case of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir
             Ahmad, (1944) 71 IA 203: AIR 1945 PC 18 and this Court in RP
             Kapur v. State of Punjab, [1960] 3 SCR 388 Jehan Singh v. Delhi
            Administration, [1974] 3 SCR 794 and SN Sharma v. Bipen Kumar
             Tiwari, [1970] 3 SCR 946 have clearly laid down that no investigation
c           can be permitted and have made the observations which I have earlier
            quoted and which were relied on by Mr. Sen. As I have earlier
            observed this proposition is not only based on sound logic but is also
            based on fundamental principles of justice, as a person against whom
            no offence is disclosed, cannot be put to any harassment by the process
            of investigation which is likely to put his personal liberty and also
D           property which are considered sacred and sacrosanct into peril and
            jeopardy."

           This Court in Sanchaita Investment has been thus rather candid to
    record that it will be the duty of the court to interfere with any investigation
E   and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary
    harassment to an individual if the court on a consideration of relevant materials
    is satisfied that no offence is disclosed.

         As noticed above, there is no contra note till date sounded by this
  Court. In the event the FIR does not disclose an offence, question of
F continuation of the investigation would not arise, since the same would be an
  utter abuse of the process of court and a harassment, which is unknown to
  law. In Rajesh Bajaj's case (supra) this Court however, without a contra note
  detailed the method of construing the document (First Information Report)
  and stated in paragraph 9 of the report as below:

G          "9. It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce
           in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is
           alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so
           many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or
           fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of
           the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients
H          have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at
             S.M. DATTA v. ST.:'.}TEOFGUJARAT [BANERJEE,J.]                 147

       this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the       A
       complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings
       during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two
       ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a
       step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information
       in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are         B
       absolutely necessary for making out the offence. In State of Haryana
       v. Bhajan Lal, (l 992) AIR SC 237 (supra) this Court laid down the
       premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following
       observations made in the aforesaid decisions are a sound reminder
       (para I 09 of AIR):

            "We also give a note of cantion to the effect that the power of
                                                                                    c
        quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
        and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that
        the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
        reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
        FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do       D
        not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
        its whim or caprice."

       We respectfully record our concurrence therewith. Criminal proceedings,
in the nonnal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage,
unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal            E
course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception
and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of t_he averments in the
FIR cannot possibly be gone into and the document shall have to be read as
a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document
which requires decision with exactitude neither it is a document which requires     F
mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be able to communicate
or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test
stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would
not arise. It is in this context however one feature ought to be noticed at this
juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which
investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which   G
ought not to be so scuttled. The First Information Report needs to be considered
and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of
an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction
of the police since two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of
activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.
                                                                                    H
    148                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        Turning attention on to the factual aspect of the matter it appears that
  Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction has been taken recourse to for quashing the
  complaint and the process issued in criminal case Nos. 193, I 94, I 95 and I 96
  of 1990 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
  Gandhidham. The original complaint stand identical excepting the name of
  the worker and are filed by the Factories Inspector, Adipur on the basis of
B his visit and inspection to the Factory of the company situated at Kandla,
  Free Trade Zone, Gandhidham. The petitioner, invoking the revisionary power
  of the courts, was admittedly the Vice Chairman of the company and at the
  material time the 'occupier' under the Factories Act, 1948. The complaint as
  filed stand in an identical cyclostyled form of filling in the blanks wherein
                                       .
C it is alleged that at the time of visit on I 7th October, I 989 at 6.00 p.m. a
  workman in Group (c) was found to be working after the prescribed working
  hours in violation of Section 63 and as such the occupier under the Factories
  Act has committed an offence within the meaning of Section 92 of the Act.
  It was stated in the complaint as below:

D          "I. the. above-mentioned accused Hindustan Lever Ltd. which is
           situated at Plot No.A/1-177, Sector No. I, KFT, Gandhidham, and is
           a .......... factory under section 2(m)(i) of the Factory Act, and whose
           owner is Shri ...................... .

           2. The factory was running when myself, the complainant, had visited
E          the Factory at 6.00 p.m. of 17.10.1989.

           On that day and time, among the adult workers one worker named
           Shri Om Prakash Rajput was working. The said worker was staying
           there in production unit (Helper-for cutting).

p          3. His name was present in the adult workers register kept in the
           Factory in the shape of Form No.28 and in it his attendance for
           17.10.89 was marked with 'P'. The said worker was of Group C.

           4. During that time, the notice of working hours of adult workers was
           shown in form No.14 in the Factory as mentioned hereunder and the
G          worker had to work accordingly.

             5. In this way, the aforesaid accused has violated the provisions of
             Section 63 of the Factory Act, 1948 by allowing the said worker/
             ordering him to work without putting note against his name in the
           · attendance register of the adult workers and against the working hours
H            shown in the Notice Form No.14 displayed in the Factory. This is an
            S.M.DATTAv. STATEOFGUJARAT[BANERJEE,J.]                     149
       offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factory Act, 1948.            A
       6. Therefore, I, the complainant, Shri Y.M. Mehta, do hereby humbly
       request that by issuing process against the accused, necessary legal
       action may be taken against him for the aforesaid offence.
                               "
                                                                                B
      To appreciate however, the true purport of the submissions centering
round the disclosure of an offence in the complaint, a few of the provisions
of the Factories Act ought to be noticed:

       Section 61.

      (I) Notice ofperiods of work for adults - (!)There shall be displayed     C
          and correctly maintained in every factory in accordance with the
          provisions of sub-section of Section I 08, a notice of periods of
          work for adults, showing clearly for every day the periods during
          which adult workers may be required to work.
      (2) The period shown in the notice required by sub-section (I) shall      D
          be fixed beforehand, in accordance with the following provisions
          of this. section and shall be such that workers working for those
          periods would not be working in contravention of any of the
          provisions of Sections 51,52,53,54, [55,56 and 58]
      (3) Where all the adult workers in a factory are required to work         E
          during the same periods, the manager of the factory shall fix
          those periocis for such workers generally.

      (4) Where all the adult workers in a factory are not required to· work
          during the same periods, the manager of the factory shall classify
          them into groups according to the nature of their work indicating     F
          the number of workers in each group.
      (5) For each group which is not required to work on a system of
          shifts, the manager of the factory shall fix the periods during
          which the group may be required to work.
                                                                                G
      (6) Where any group is required to work on a system of shifts and
          the relays are not to be subject to pre-determined periodical
          changes of shifts, the manager of the factory shall fix the periods
          during which each relay of the group may be required to work.
      (7)   Where any group is to work on a system of shifts and the relays     H
    150                       Sl."REME COURT REPORI , [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A              are to be subject to pre-determined periodical changes of shifts,
               the manager of the factory shall draw up a scheme of shifts
               whereunder the periods during which any relay of the group may
               be required to work and the relay which will be working at any
               time of the day shall be known for any day.
B         (8) The State Government may prescribe forms of the notice required
              by sub-section (I) and the manner in which it shall be maintained.
          (9) In the case uf a factory beginning work after the commencement
              of this Act, a copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (I)
              shall be sent in duplicate to the Inspector before the day on which
c             work is begun in the factory.
          (10) Any proposed change in the system of work in any factory which
               will necessitate a change in the notice referred to in sub-section
               (!)shall be notified to the Inspector in duplicate before the change
               is made, and except with the previous sanction of the Inspector,
D              no such change shall be made until one week has elapsed since
               the last change."

          Whilst on the statutory provisions, Section 62 ought also to be noted
    since it has its relevance in the contextual facts:

           "62. Register of adu It workers-( 1) The manager of every factory shall
E          maintain a register of adult workers to be available to the inspector
           at all times during working hours, or when any work is being carried
           on in the factory, showing-

           (a) the name of each adult worker in the factory;

F          (b) the nature of his work;

           (c) the group, if any, in which he is included;

           (d) where his group works on shifts, the relay to which he is allotted;
           and
G          (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. Provided that, if the
           Inspector is of opinion that any muster-roll or register maintained as
           a part of the routine of a factory gives in respect of any or all the
           workers in the factory the particulars required under this section, he
           may, by order in writing, direct that such muster-roll or register shall
H          to the corresponding extent be maintained in place of, and be treated
                  S.M. DATTA v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BANERJEE, J.]                 151
             as, the register of adult.workers in that factory.                         A
             [(I-A) No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any
             factory unless his name and other particulars have been entered in the
             register of adult workers.]

             (2) The State Government may prescribe the form of the register of         B
             adult workers, the manner in which it shall be maintained and the
             period for which it shall be preserved."

           Since however the complaint itself records that the accused has violated
     the provisions of Section 63, it would also be convenient to note the contents
     of Section 63 of the Act. The said provisions read as below:                       C
             "63. Hours of work to correspond with notice under Section 61 and
             register under Section 62- No adult worker shall be required or allowed
             to work in any factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice
             of periods of work for adults displayed in the factory and the entries
             made beforehand against his name in the register of adult workers of       D
             the factory."

            Before however, adverting to the impact of the statutory provisions,
     certain basic features about the Factories Act, 1948 ought to be noticed at this
     juncture. The Act has been engrafted in the Statute Book as an Act to
     consolidate and amend the law regulating the labour in factories. Needless to      E
     record that the establishment of cotton mills in Bombay in 1851 and the jute
     mill at Rishra in Bengal marked the beginning of factory system in India and
     it is only thereafter that the factories grew steadily both in Bombay and in
     Bengal but the conditions prevailing in these factories were inhuman both as
-t
     regards working hours, welfare measures and wages. Availability of labour          F
     were plenty and as such became rather cheap and in order to eradicate the
     same, a commission was appointed in 1875 to investigate the conditions of
     labour in factories and on the basis of its recommendations, the first Factories
      Bill 1880 was introduced in the legislation, subsequently however, the Bill
     was adopted as an Act. No sooner however, the Act was passed, agitation            G
     started afresh in Bombay and other places and on the basis of the report of
     a committee, the Indian Factories (Amendment) Act of 1891 was passed. The
     provisions of the amended Act was also inadequate and a somewhat revised
     Bill was subsequently introduced in 1909 and the same was passed aS a
     Statute in 1911. Though the Factories Act 1911 was amended from time to
     time but it could not meet the required growing activities in the country          H
    152                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A specially after the Secofld World War by reason wherefor, Factories Act
    1948 was engrafted in the Statute Book where emphasis had been on the
    welfare of the workers. Factory Inspectors have been placed with very heavy
    responsibility on them and provisions have been made io the statute
    empowering the State Governments to make and frame rules for the purposes
B   of meeting the local exigencies of situation. The Act undoubtedly is thus a
    welfare legislation and cannot but be termed to be a complete code in itself.
    The Act also provides for punishment for violation of any of the provisions.

         In the same vein, this Court in Bhikusa Yamasa Kshatriya (Fri) Ltd v.
    Union of India and Anr., (AIR) 1963 SC 1591 stated as below:
c           "9. The Factories Act, as the preamble recites, is an Act to consolidate
            and amend the law regulating labour in factories. The Act is enacted
            primarily with the object of protecting workers employed in factories
       •    against industrial and occupational hazards. For that purpose it seeks
            to impose upon the owners or the occupiers certain obligations to
D           protect workers unwary as well as negligent and to secure for them
            employment in conditions conducive to their health and safety. The
            Act requires that the workers should work in healthy and sanitary
            conditions and for that purpose it provides that precautions should be
            taken for the safety of workers and prevention of accidents. Incidental
            provisions are made for securing information necessary to ensure that
E
            the objects are carried out and the State Governments are empowered
            to appoint inspectors, to call for reports and to inspect the prescribed
            registers with a view to maintain effective supervision. The duty of
            the employer is to secure the health and safety of workers and extends
            to providing adequate plant, machinery and appliances, supervision
F           over workers, healthy and safe premises, proper system of working
            and extends to giving reasonable instructions. Detailed provisions are
            therefore made in diverse chapters of the Act imposing obligations
            upon the owners of the factories to maintain inspecting staff and for
            maintenance of health, cleanliness, prevention of overcrowding and
            provision for amenities such as lighting, drinking water, etc. etc.
G
            Provisions are also made for safety of workers and their welfare, such
            as restrictions on working hours and on the employment of young
            persons and females, and grant of annual leave with wages."

           The backdrop of legislation and the subsequent incorporation of the
H Factories Act in the statute book as noticed hereinbefore in this judgment has
             S.M. DATTA v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BANERJEE, J.]                 153

been adverted to by reason of a true reading of the provisions of the Act of       A
1948, the underlying intent of the legislature to confer benefits on the labour
force of a factory cannot be doubted in any way whatsoever. Appointment of
Inspectors by the State Government in tenns of the provisions of State Rules
(in the instant case Gujarat Factory Rules, 1963) has been effected only for
the purposes of giving effect to the beneficial piece of legislation and as such   B
both the rules and forms introduced thereunder by the State Government and
the provision of the statute shall have to be read in consonance with the
intent of the legislature and not de hors the same.

      Even on a cursory look to Section 62 of the Factories Act, the
requirement to maintain a register of adult workers to be available cannot be      C
doubted in any way. Sub-section 2 of Section 62 is an authorisation for the
State Government to prescribe the fonn of the register of adult workers and
the manner in which it shall be maintained. The Gujarat Factories Rules,
1963 has been framed to suit the conditions in tenns of the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948. Rule 87 of the said Rules prescribes that notice of period
of work for adult workers shall be in Fonn No.14 which in turn prescribes          D
different periods of work for adult workers. Form 28 provides the muster roll
as prescribed in Rule 110 of the Gujarat Rules. Rule 110 provides as below:

        "110 Muster-roll-(!) The manager of every factory shall maintain a
        muster-roll of all the workers employed in the factory in Fonn No.28
        showing (a) the name of each worker, (b) the nature of his work and        E
        (c) the daily attendance of the worker.

             (2) The muster-roll shall be written up afresh each month and
        shall be preserved for a period of 3 years from the date of last entry
        in it:
                                                                                   F
           Provided that if the daily attendance is noted in respect of Adult
       and Child Workers in the Registers of Workers in Forms Nos. 15 and
       17 respectively, or the particulars required under sub-rule (1) are
       noted in any other register, and such registers are preserved for a
       period of 3 years from the date of last entry in them, a separate
       muster-roll required under sub-rule (I) need not be maintained."            G
      Turning attention on to the complaint, it is seen that Shri Omprakash
Rajput was found present in the list of adult workers register kept in the
factory in the Form No.28 wherein the attendance of Shri Omprakash Rajput
appears. Thus, requirement of maintenance of muster-roll register stands           H
    154                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A complied. There is also a specific mention that the worker was of Group C.
          On an analysis of the complaint it thus appears that due compliance as
    regards Fonn No.28 is available on record but Fonn No.14 as displayed in
    the factory premises does not contain the aforesaid name of Shri Omprakash
    Rajput as regards the working hours. Admittedly Shri Omprakash Rajput was
B   in tenns of the avennents of the complaint working during the visit of the
    inspector. Let us now thus have a close look at Fonn No.14 which is supposed
    to be complied with by non-compliance rather than compliance. Fonn No.14
    prescribes the notice of period of works for adult workers with details of
    male and female employees, description of groups, period of work having
C   due record to the working days and partial working days along, however,
    with the name of the factory, place where the same is located and the district.
    Annexure to the complaint records the working hours as between 8.00 a.m.
    to 4.30 p.m. with usual break in tenns of the requirement together with a
    specific mention of an entry at 4.40 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. as over time - admittedly
    thus during the visit of the inspector the members of the staff were working
D   on overtime. The complaint records violation of Section 63 and which in turn
    envisages compliance with section 61 and section 62: Whereas section 62
    cannot but be mentioned to be the muster-roll: Section 61 envisages a definite
    notice which is required to be displayed and maintained correctly in accordance
    with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 108, depicting clearly for
E   every day the periods during which adult workers may be required to work.
    Sub-section 2 of section 61 specifically records that the period shown in the
    notice shall be fixed before hand in accordance with the provisions of section
    61 so as not to permit workers working in contravention of any of the
    provisions of sections 51 to 56 and 58. Significantly sub-section 4 of Section
    61 requires a factory Manager to classify the employees in groups according
F   to the nature of their work and indicating the number of workers in each
    group. Admittedly Shri Omprakash Rajput and the three other employees all
    belong to group C and as appears on the face of the complaint, as lodged.
    The mandate of the statute ought to be interpreted in a manner to give
    efficacy to the legislative intent. The Factories Act, 1948 cannot but be
G   ascribed to be a beneficial piece of legislation and the requirement of Section
    61, in particular, sub-sections I & 2 of Section 61 can be easily deciphered
    since the intent stands clear enough to indicate that an adult worker must
    know his daily placement and daily workings before hand - this placement
    before hand is the requirement of the statute in section 63 and in the event
    of non-compliance, there is a liability for being prosecuted. We have in the
H   complaint a statement that Form No.14 does not stand completed. We have
            S.M.DATTAv. STATEOFGUJARAT[BANERJEE,J.]                         155
also in the complaint the number of working hours on a day but the requirement      A
of Form No.14, the inspector alleges, does not stand fulfilled. It is too early
at this stage, however, to contend that the afore-said statement does not stand
to reason and the complaint needs to be quashed at this stage of the proceeding.

       Mr. Dave, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the petition
though very strongly urged that the words "otherwise than in accordance             B
with the notice of periods of work for adults" displayed at the factory as
appears in section 63 there is thus complete compliance. The requirements in
terms of Rule 87 or 88 and that of Form No.14 also stand complied with. Mr.
Dave further pointed out that the second requirement of section 63 ought to
be co-related with Form No. 28 under section 62 read with se.ction 110 of the       C
Gujarat Factories Rules. The statute, however, in particular section 61
specifically requires entries to be made 'beforehand' which stands virtually
engrafted in section 63. Compliance with Form No. 28 is not in dispute but
compliance with Form No. 14 and entries to be made therein 'beforehand'
needs a further scrutiny of facts which at this stage of the proceeding cannot
be gone into. User of the expression 'before hand' app.ears in section 61           D
which envisages a specific state of facts, which the complainant alleges as
not being complied with - criminal complaints ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stages and quashing of complaint at the· initial stages is rather an
exception than a rule. Beneficial legislations have been engrafted on the
statute book for the benefit of the socially down-trodden and on the wake of        E
such a situation, it would neither be. fair nor be reasonable at this stage to
nullify the efforts of an inspector under the Rules. The matter needs further
enquiry and investigation as to the factum of entry being made before hand
in the register maintained in terms of section 61 of the Factories Act. It is too
early in the day to say that there would not be even a possibility of non-
compliance of section 63 which in tum envisages non-compliance of section           F
61 and section 62 of the Factories Act.

       A long catena of cases some of which stand referred by us hereinbefore
in this judgment signifies one principle rule that the complaints ought not to
be quashed at the initial stages unless it is termed to be an abuse of the
process of the court: the complaint in question, in our view, cannot be so          G
termed as such we do not find any justification for interference with the order
as passed by the High Court. The Appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

S.V.K.                                                     Appeals dismissed.
                                                                                    H