Orissa High Court
G.R. Arun Kumar vs Asst. Director Of Factories &Boilers on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 792 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).
G.R. Arun Kumar .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
Asst. Director of Factories &Boilers, .... Opp. Party (s)
Kalahandi Zone i/c, Bhawanipatra
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.
along with Mr. Tanmay Mishra, Adv.
For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-24.06.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.07.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, G.R. Arun Kumar, has approached this Court seeking
to quash the criminal proceeding in 2(C) C.C. No. 11 of 2019 pending
before the learned J.M.F.C., Lanjigarh, arising out of a complaint
instituted by the Assistant Director of Factories & Boilers, alleging a
violation of Rule 62-D of the Orissa Factory Rules, 1950.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
(i) On 16.04.2019, at about 3:40 P.M., an industrial accident
occurred on the 1st Floor of Digestion Train-1, near Steam Heater
No. 026-HX-1007, within the premises of M/s Vedanta Limited
at Lanjigarh wherein Shri Jasu Prasad, a contract worker
engaged through M/s Indfab Projects Private Limited, sustained
a fracture to his right leg in the course of maintenance work. It is
this incident that ultimately gave rise to the present prosecution.
(ii) At the relevant time, Shri Jasu Prasad, along with Shri Surendra
Yadav and two other workers, had been assigned the descaling
of the Steam Heater, which entailed the loosening of a total of 46
flange studs that secured the bottom dome of the Steam Heater.
This bottom dome, which weighed approximately 4.5 tonnes,
was supported only by chain pulley blocks and slings.
(iii) Of the 46 flange studs, 38 studs were loosened using a
pneumatic wrench, whereas the remaining 8 studs having come
under severe strain on account of the weight of the dome, were
manually loosened with a 7 kg hammer and a 75 mm slogging
spanner.
(iv) While loosening the third of the remaining 8 studs, the hammer
slipped over the slogging spanner and struck the lower portion
of the right leg of Shri Jasu Prasad, causing a fracture of his right
leg. He was administered first aid, thereafter he was shifted to
Vedanta Hospital, Lanjigarh and then to Sparsh Nursing Home,
Sambalpur where he was discharged on 19.04.2019.
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
(v) The Incident Investigation Report examined the circumstances
surrounding the accident and identified measures that ought to
have been adopted to avoid such an occurrence. It
recommended the use of a suitable hydraulic scissor lift to
adequately support the bottom dome during its removal to
prevent the flange studs from being subjected to undue strain on
account of the heavy load of the bottom dome. It further
recommended the use of a hydraulic impact wrench for
loosening and tightening the flange studs instead of manual
hammer-and-spanner operations, besides emphasizing that all
body parts should be kept clear of the hammer swing path and
that necessary precautions should be exercised while
hammering on the ring spanner to avoid injuries to the leg.
(vi) Following the accident, the Assistant Director of Factories &
Boilers, Kalahandi Zone, Bhawanipatna, instituted Complaint
Case No. 2(C) C.C. No. 11 of 2019 against the Petitioner before
the learned J.M.F.C., Lanjigarh, under Section 105 of the
Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 13 of the Orissa Factories
Rules, 1950, alleging violation of Rule 62-D of the said Rules. By
order dated 08.07.2019, the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna took
cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act,
1948.
(vii) The co-accused Shri Sanjeev Kumar, who had been appointed as
Factory Manager for the Lanjigarh unit had approached this
Court earlier, challenging the criminal proceeding initiated
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
against him. By order dated 24.04.2023, the proceeding was
quashed, primarily on the ground that the Company had not
been arraigned as an accused.
(viii) The Petitioner, who was serving as the Whole-Time Director of
the Company and stationed at New Delhi, has been arraigned as
the Occupier of the factory within the meaning of Section 2(n) of
the Factories Act, 1948. Although the day-to-day operations of
the unit stood entrusted to the Factory Manager, the Petitioner
alone continues to face prosecution. It is in these circumstances
that the Petitioner seeks the same relief, contending that a
director occupying such a position cannot be subjected to
criminal liability when the Company itself has not been made a
party to the prosecution.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The learned counsel for the Peteitioner respectfully and earnestly
made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The co-accused, Shri Sanjeev Kumar, had approached this Court
in CRLMC No. 375 of 2020 which has already been quashed by
this Court by order dated 24.04.2023. The Petitioner submits that
the allegations levelled against him arise out of the very same
incident and rest on a factual and legal position identical to
those of the co-accused. The principles of consistency and parity,
therefore, warrant the extension of the same relief to the
petitioner.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
(ii) The Company, M/s Vedanta Limited itself has not been
arraigned as an accused in the complaint. Reliance is placed on
Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.1, Sharad
Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane,2 and Gourav Kumar Hota vs
Ajay Kumar Barik3 to contend that the prosecution of a director
or manager, without impleading the company, is legally
unsustainable.
(iii) The accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of the
injured workman, when the hammer slipped from his hand
during the maintenance work. The workman was discharged
after three days of treatment and suffered neither disability nor
injury.
(iv) The management of M/s Vedanta Limited promptly reported
the accident to the statutory authorities i.e., the Deputy Director
of Factories and Boilers (Safety) and complied with the reporting
obligations under Rules 97 and 103 of the Orissa Factories Rules,
1950. The essential ingredient of deliberate breach of safety
norms by the petitioner is wholly absent and the opposite party
has failed to identify any systemic or structural defect in the
safety arrangements of the factory attributable to the Petitioner.
(v) At the relevant time the Petitioner was a Whole-Time Director,
stationed at New Delhi, removed from the day-to-day
operations of the factory. He had duly appointed a Factory
1
(2012) 5 SCC 661
2
(2015) 12 SCC 78
3
CRLREV No. 542 of 2014
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
Manager for the Lanjigarh unit, entrusted him with direct
control and supervision of daily operations and safety measures
as contemplated under Sections 7A and 7B of the Factories Act,
1948. The petitioner was neither present at the site nor involved
in the maintenance work during which the accident occurred.
(vi) The continuance of the prosecution against the Petitioner alone,
particularly after the quashing of the proceeding against the co-
accused, amounts to arbitrary discrimination and an abuse of
the process of the Court. Subjecting the Petitioner to a criminal
trial despite his lack of direct involvement in the incident would
cause him irreparable loss, harassment and prejudice.
(vii) On these grounds, the Petitioner prays that the complaint be
quashed in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
4. The learned counsel for the State earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The present CRLMC is devoid of merit, as the complaint
petition and the materials gathered during the statutory
investigation disclose a prima facie contravention of Rule 62-D of
the Odisha Factories Rules, 1950, thereby justifying the
continuation of the criminal proceeding.
(ii) As revealed by the statutory investigation, the accident was the
consequence of an unsafe method adopted for carrying out the
maintenance work, namely that the 4.5-tonne bottom dome of
the Steam Heater had not been adequately supported with
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04lifting equipment of sufficient capacity, resulting in excessive
strain on the remaining flange studs. The Incident Investigation
Report, accordingly, recommended the use of a hydraulic scissor
lift and a hydraulic impact wrench in place of manual hammer
and spanner.
(iii) Under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, the occupier is the
person having ultimate control over the affairs of the factory.
The Petitioner, being the Whole-Time Director, is the occupier
within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Act and cannot evade
the statutory responsibilities so attached merely because the
day-to-day management had been entrusted to the Factory
Manager.
(iv) The Petitioner’s contention founded upon the non-impleadment
of the Company is wholly misconceived. Section 92 of the
Factories Act specifically contemplates the liability of both the
occupier and the manager for contraventions of the Act and the
Rules, and the present prosecution has been instituted in
conformity with that statutory framework.
(v) The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon Aneeta Hada v.
Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.4 and Sharad Kumar
Sanghi v. Sangita Rane5 is misplaced and has no application to
the facts of the present case. The said decisions pertain to
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.
4
(2012) 5 SCC 661
5
(2015) 12 SCC 78
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
Conversely, the present case arises under the Factories Act,
wherein Section 92 expressly imposes statutory liability upon
the occupier and the manager.
(vi) The Petitioner’s contention that the accident can be attributed
solely to the negligence of the injured workman is contrary to
the statutory Incident Investigation Report, which found
systemic safety failures, and adoption of outdated and
hazardous processes in the maintenance work. The materials on
record, therefore, clearly demonstrate a prima facie case against
the Petitioner.
(vii) The Opposite Parties, accordingly, pray that the present CRLMC
be dismissed and the proceeding against the Petitioner be
permitted to continue in accordance with law.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW:
5. The Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhawanipatna made
the following observations:
(i) By order dated 08.07.2019, the learned S.D.J.M. registered the
case and, upon a perusal of the case record, recorded that there
existed sufficient prima facie material available on record to
proceed against the accused persons. On that basis, cognizance
of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 was
taken against both the Occupier and the Manager, and the
matter was directed to be listed for the appearance of the
accused persons.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
(ii) During the pendency of the proceeding, the co-accused filed an
application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking dispensation of
his personal attendance, which was allowed by the learned
S.D.J.M., by order dated 27.09.2019. It was noted that
dispensation of personal attendance in a summons case lies
within the discretion of the Magistrate, to be exercised only in
rare cases where, owing to the considerable distance at which
the accused resides or carries on business, or for any other
sufficient reason, dispensing with such attendance would serve
the interests of justice. Relying upon TGN Kumar v. State of
Kerala,6 the learned S.D.J.M. observed that the while
considering such an application, the Magistrate must give
regard to the nature of the offence and the conduct of the person
summoned.
(iii) Taking into account that the case arose under Section 92 of the
Factories Act, 1948, and that the co-accused was posted as Head,
Operation & Maintenance at the Lanjigarh unit while the
Company’s registered office was at Mumbai, the learned
Magistrate recorded that attending day-to-day proceedings
would be difficult and accordingly permitted him to appear
through counsel. It was subject to the conditions that he shall
not dispute his identity, shall not object to evidence being
recorded in his absence through counsel, that his counsel shall
6
2011 (2) SCC 772
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
co-operate till disposal, and that he shall appear in person
whenever so directed.
(iv) Thereafter, by order dated 24.04.2023 in CRLMC No. 375 of 2020,
this Court quashed the proceeding in 2(C) C.C. No. 11 of 2019
insofar as it concerned the co-accused. However, the proceeding
has continued against the Petitioner alone before the learned
J.M.F.C., Lanjigarh. As is evident from the order dated
16.08.2025, the learned J.M.F.C. had directed the issuance of
fresh summons for the appearance of the Petitioner and listed
the matter for 25.11.2025, the proceeding thus remaining
pending against the Petitioner.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
7. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the
criminal proceeding is not maintainable because the Company has not
been arrayed as an accused and that the petitioner, though shown as
occupier, was stationed at New Delhi and had no role in the day-to-
day functioning of the factory. The State, on the other hand, submits
that the complaint discloses a prima facie contravention of Rule 62-D
of the Odisha Factories Rules, 1950 and that Section 92 of the Factories
Act, 1948 fastens statutory liability on the occupier and the manager.
8. Section 2(n) of the Factories Act defines the occupier as the person
who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory and, in the case
of a company, any one of its directors is deemed to be the occupier.
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
Section 7A imposes on every occupier the duty to ensure, so far as is
reasonably practicable, the health and safety of all workers while at
work in the factory. Section 92 provides that where there is any
contravention of the Act or the Rules, the occupier and manager of the
factory shall each be guilty of an offence. Rule 62-D specifically
mandates that no process or work shall be carried on in any factory in
such a manner as to cause risk or bodily injury. Section 101 of the Act
provides a specific defence where the occupier or manager seeks to
identify and proceed against the actual offender.
9. The statutory position as to the liability of the occupier is no longer res
integra. In J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and
Boilers7, the Supreme Court held that where a company owns or runs
a factory, the company acts through its directors and one of the
directors has to be notified as occupier.
10. The Court further held that Section 92 contemplates liability of the
occupier and manager irrespective of who is directly responsible for
the contravention, that offences under the Act are strict statutory
offences and that the notified director cannot avoid liability merely
because management had been entrusted to a manager or some other
employee. The same decision notices Section 101 as the statutory
safeguard available to the occupier or manager. The relevant excerpts
are produced below:
“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 that7
(1996) 6 SCC 665Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04the notified/identified director is ignorant about the
‘management’ of the factory which has been entrusted to a
manager or some other employee and is himself 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 thereunder or of any order made in writing under
it for the offender company, which is the occupier of the
factory.
….
It deserves a notice that under the Act, the legislature has
itself taken care to dilute the rigor of Section 92 by providing
an exception to the strict liability rule by laying down a
third-party procedure in Section 101 of the Act”
11. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Aneeta Hada (supra), Sharad
Kumar Sanghi (supra), does not advance his case. Those decisions
turned on statutory regimes where the criminal liability of directors or
officers was derivative of the offence of the company itself. That
distinction has been explained by the Supreme Court in S.C. Garg v.
State of Uttar Pradesh8, while discussing the line of cases
following Aneeta Hada (supra). Section 92 of the Factories Act is
differently worded. It directly declares that the occupier and manager
shall each be guilty where there is contravention in or in respect of the
factory. Hence, the non-impleadment of the company does not, by
itself, furnish a legal bar to the continuance of the prosecution against
the notified occupier under the Factories Act.
12. On the materials in the complaint, this Court is unable to hold that no
offence is made out even if the allegations are taken at face value. The
8
2025 INSC 493
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
prosecution case is that the maintenance work on the bottom dome of
the Steam Heater was carried out by adopting an unsafe method,
without adequate supporting equipment and with manual hammer
and spanner operation on strained studs, resulting in bodily injury to
the worker. If these allegations are accepted as they stand, a prima
facie infraction of Rule 62-D is disclosed. Whether the accident
occurred solely because of the negligence of the injured workman, or
whether the factory had in fact taken all reasonably practicable
measures, are matters of defence and evidence. They cannot be
adjudicated conclusively in a proceeding for quashing.
13. The plea that the petitioner was stationed at New Delhi and not in
day-to-day control of operations is likewise not a ground for quashing
in view of the statutory scheme. The Act deliberately fastens
responsibility on the occupier as the person in ultimate control. If the
petitioner seeks to contend that some other person was the actual
offender and that he had exercised due diligence, the Act itself
provides the appropriate course in Section 101. That defence is for the
trial court to examine on evidence.
14. Much emphasis was laid on the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in
CRLMC No. 375 of 2020 in favour of the co-accused Manager. The
said order undoubtedly arose out of the same complaint. Even so, the
present petition has to be tested on the basis of the statutory position
governing the liability of the occupier and the settled law declared by
the Supreme Court. An order passed in favour of another accused
does not ipso facto conclude the issue where the statute expressly
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jul-2026 17:01:04
fastens liability and the complaint otherwise discloses a prima facie
case.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding in 2(C) C.C. No. 11 of
2019 so far as the present petitioner is concerned. The CRLMC is,
accordingly, dismissed.
16. However, having regard to the position of the petitioner and the
nature of the accusation, it is observed that if the petitioner files an
application for exemption from personal appearance, the learned
J.M.F.C., Lanjigarh shall consider the same in accordance with law
and on its own merits. It is also open to the petitioner to avail such
remedies as are permissible under Section 101 of the Factories Act
before the learned trial court.
17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th July, 2026/
Page 14
