http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 852-855 of 2001

Special Leave Petition (civil) 1566-69 of 2000

PETITIONER:

S.M. DATTA.... APPELLANT

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF GUJARAT &ANR. ... RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/2001

BENCH:

A.P.Misra, U.C.Banerjee

JUDGMENT:

BANERJEE,J.

Leave granted.

Since the decision of Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed [King

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 cognizable offence and the First Information

Report (F.I.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 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 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

right of the court to intervene in an appropriate

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

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."

The qualified statement of the Judicial Committee however stands

noted in Sanchaita Investment (State of West Bengal and Others v. Swapan

Kumar Guha and Others : 1982 (1) SCC 561). Incidentally, Sanchaita

Investment and subsequent decisions including Bhajan Lal [State of

Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and Rajesh

Bajaj [Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999 Crl.L.J. 1833)] in

one tune stated that if an offence 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

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

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 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 decision of this Court in State of Bihar & Anr.

v. JAC Saldanha & Ors. [1980 (1) SCC 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

this Court in Sanchaita Investment (supra) observed:

"In my opinion, the legal position is well settled.

The legal position 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 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, however, no

offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be

permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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

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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

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

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:

"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 have been precisely spelled out in the

complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual

foundation for the offence has been laid in the

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

absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR SCW

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 109 of AIR):

"We also give a note of caution to the effect

that the power of 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 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 normal 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 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 requires decision with exactitude 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. 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

ought not to tread over the other sphere.

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. 193,194,195 and 196

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

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 it is alleged that at the time of visit on 17th October, 1989 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

Section92 of the Act. It was stated in the complaint as below:

"1.the above-mentioned accused Hindustan Lever

Ltd. which is situated at Plot No.A/1-177, Sector

No.1, 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 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).

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

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 shown in the Notice

Form No.14 displayed in the Factory. This is an

offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factory

Act, 1948.

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.

......................................."

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.

(1) Notice of periods of work for adults - (1) There

shall be displayed and correctly maintained in

every factory in accordance with the provisions of

sub-section (2) of Section 108, a notice of periods

of work for adults, showing clearly for every day

the periods during which adult workers may be

required to work.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

(2) The period shown in the notice required by sub-

section (1) shall 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 during the same periods, the

manager of the factory shall fix those periods 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 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.

(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 are tobe 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.

(8) The State Government may prescribe forms of the

notice required by sub-section (1) and the manner

in which it shall be maintained.

(9) In the case of a factory beginning work after the

commencement of this Act, a copy of the notice

referred to in sub-section (1) shall be sent in

duplicate to the Inspector before the day on which

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 (1) shall be

notified to the Inspector in duplicate before the

change is made, and except with the previous

sanction of the Inspector, 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 adult workers-(1) The manager of

every factory shall 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;

(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

(e) such other particulars as may be prescribed.

Provided that, if the Inspector is of opinion that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

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 to the corresponding extent be maintained in

place of, and be treated as, the register of adult

workers in that factory.

[(1-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 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:

"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

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 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 regards working hours, welfare measures and wages. Availability of

labour 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 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 specially after the Second 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 in the statute empowering the State Governments to make and

frame rules for the purposes 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 (Pri) Ltd. v.

Union of India and another (AIR 1963 SC 1591) stated as below:

"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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

obligations to 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 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 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. 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

Factories Act in the statute book as noticed hereinbefore in this judgment

has been adverted to by reason of a true reading of the provisions of the Act

of 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 terms 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 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

doubted in any way. Sub-section 2 of Section 62 is an authorisation for the

State Government to prescribe the form 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 terms 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 Form No.14 which in turn

prescribes 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-(1) The manager of every factory shall

maintain a muster-roll of all the workers employed in the

factory in Form No.28 showing (a) the name of each worker,

(b) the nature of his work and (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:

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 (1) need

not be maintained."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

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

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 Form No.28 is available on record but Form 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 in terms of the averments of the complaint working during the visit of

the inspector. Let us now thus have a close look at Form No.14 which is

supposed to be complied with by non-compliance rather than compliance.

Form 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 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 terms 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 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 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 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 ascribed to be a beneficial

piece of legislation and the requirement of Section 61, in particular, sub-

sections 1 & 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

complaint a statement that Form No.14 does not stand completed. We have

also in the complaint the number of working hours on a day but the

requirement 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

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 section 110 of

the 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' appears in section 61

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

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

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 turn envisages non-compliance of section

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 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.