Mohit Gujral v. State NCT of Delhi Thr. Factory Inspector

ORDER (ORAL! V J VM' \ For detailed order, the decision dated 19^*" November, 2018 in Crl.M.C. 1873/2015 may'fereferredjo. - K GA NOVEMBER 19,2018 nk Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. : Vr /I IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 3"'October, 2018 Pronounced on: 19"' November, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 1873/2015 & CRL.M.A. 6732/2015 S.N. SUBRA-HMANYAM r, • • retitioner Through: Mr. Vilcas Paliwa, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sima Gulati. Mr. Subhash Gulati. Mr Shailesh Poddar, Mr. Vinit Arora & Mr. Sumit Saini, Advocates. versus, STATE . . T'- . • Respondent Through.:' Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP. I + CRL.M.C 2064/2015 ^LF UNIV.ERSAE LTD; THR.. ITS AIJTHORTZFn REPRESENTTIVE HDKIZED ^ Petitioner Through: : Mv Raiiidsh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with ;^V;Sandepp Kapur, Mr. Vivek Suri . ' f Mr-Karan Seth & Mr. Mayaiilc Datta V .Advs. versus. - I. • STATE NCT OF DELHI THR. FACTORY INSPECTOR Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP. + CRL.M.C 20^,6/2015 RAJEEV TALWAR " . . n^, ' , I . Petitioner hioti^r: , Mr Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate . With Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Vivek Suri, Mr. Karn Seth, Mr. Mayank Cil.JVi.C. IS73/2015 & connected / Page I of 54 "r- \ 'V: A c-Datta & Mr. Aashn^et Singh Advocates. ® ' versus I " STATE NCT OF DELHI Throngh: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, + CRL.M.C. 2067/2015 MOHIT GrUJRAL Through: Ramesh Gupta. Sr. Ad^hl . S^andeep Kapur. Mr. Vivek Suri ^;faran Seth & Mr. Mayank Datta, versus STATE NCT OF DELIH THR. FACTORY INSPECTOR Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.' K ^363/2015 If# ''YM^^^feAgarwai, Mr. Amy I MafeoteaiWr. Aninrdh Bhat^ Advocates. ' STATE ; r I , Through: . Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.'^®''^™''™' A m'^^K ^ '366/2015 Thr-ough: Mr. Kapil Sibbaf Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Anui Cil. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected I , - ' ' Page 2 of54 ^1 versus STATE &ORS. T? ^ , ••••• Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APT. + CRL.M.C 2070/2015 & CRL.M.A. 7369/2015 MVKOTW^ Petitioner Through : Mr. Dayankrishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Anuj " Malhotra & Mr. Animdh Bhat, Advocates. versus STATE &ORS. p T., , ^ Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP. + ^^L.M.€.2071/2015.&GI^^^ c SHAILENDRAROY Through:, •. Ms. Slpa,.^ulati with Mr. Subhash .Sumit.Saiihi, Advocates, versus STATE ^ rj., , • :I Respondent Thiough: Mr. Mpkesh Kumar, APP. + CRL.M.C. 2072/20lS&^i3l^vta; R-SHANICAR RAMAN Petitioner Through: Ms. Sima Gulati with Mr. Subhash Gul^i,|^.ShaileshPoddar& 'S^ihiTSaini, Advocates. versus STATE + Tu , •••••Respondent Thiough: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP. sS's'Sf' ^ Tt, I ., Petitioner Through: . Mr. R.K. Handoo with Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Vivek Suri, Mr. Mayank \ I-l^-C. 1873/2015 & connected i.,' 1 Datta, Mr. Karan Seth & Mr. AashrieetSingh. Advocates. versus. STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP. + .2159/2015 & CRL.M.A. 7672/2015 ASHOKKU^TYAGI ..Petitioner Tlirough: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Ml-. Vivek Suri, Mr. Kam Seth, Mr. Mayank ,

Datta & Mr. Aashneet I ..Sirigh,,.Ad;V0cates. versus ' - • STATE NCT OF DELHI i R,,p""dent Through: Mk Mukesh Kumar, APP. ' I / i . ' * I + CRL.M.C. 2160/2015?& CRL;MtAi:-7637/2015 SHRIRAMKHATTAK, Through! Mr.;%X.^doo with Mu SaZlep Rlpur^^^ ; Vivek Suri, Mr. Mayank Petitioner Datta, Mr. Karan Seth & Mr. Aaslmeet Singh, Advocates. ■Versus . . . ■ C STATE NCT^OF DELHI :.... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMF. 1VT l. The work of development of DLF Capital Green Project at a construction site described as 15. Shivaji Marg, Delhi-110 015 owned CiI. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 4 of-54 c by DLF Universal Limited ("the land owner company") was underway m May, 2014, the contract for said construction work having been entrusted by the said land owner company to M/s, Larsen and Toubro Limited ( the construction contractor company"). On 17.05.2014 at about 3:50 p.m. a worker named Anldt Kumar, engaged as a painter at the level of{18'^ floor of Tower No.l4, while applying paint on the face of the exterior wall, fell down to the ground suffering serious .injuries that resulted in his death.

¶2The matter was reported, inter alia, to the Station House Officer Q who registered first information report , (FIR) No.429/2014 and took up the investigation into offences suspected to have been' committed, they being punishable under Section 288 (negligent conduct I with respect to pulling down or repairing building) and Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.(IPG);:. Thel^estigation into the said HR resulted in report under ■■Seefen;d7f ^f^ the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ,(Cr.P,C.) being submitted to seek prosecution of one Shahzad son of Abdul Gani on the accusations of his complicity in the ■said offences under Sections 288/304-A. IPG for the reasons that he was the supervisor engaged by the sub-contractor Anwar Ahmad, to whom tire work in question had been allocated by the construction contractor company, the death being attributable to acts of commission or omission on his part.

¶3Simultaneous to the aforesaid report to the police and initiation of action by it v,s-a-vis the aforementioned cognizable offences, the OV. M. C. 1873/2015 & competed Page 5 of54 mater was also brought to the notice of the authorities in the office of labour commissioner, Govt. of National Capital Territoiy of Delhi, particularly the Inspector of Building and Construction. The inquiries made by the said authorities culminated in a criminal complaint (CC N0.55F1/14) being presented in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 10.07.2014 by the Inspector of Building and Construction (also Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories), the complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 47 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 ("the Building and Construction'Wprkers Act", for short). The O

Metropolitan Magistrate I took ,eognf2,aKee;-i)y order dated 10.09.2014 and issued summons on the said'c:o»rt4i"t, inter alia, against 'the petitioners who have approaghed ' thii court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 O.F.feAby the captioned petitions seeking the proceedings arising Out of Ihet^aid criminal complaint case to be quashed on the ground thetsaije Spi the nature of abuse of the ' process of the court. ' ' ; • :h'- 4 .

¶4It may be mentioned here that the. crim,inal complaint in which smnmoning order was passed, which ifci'hipiigned here, fifteen (15) persons were shown in the fray as accused, they including the land owner company and the construction contractor company, five of the accused persons being associated with the land owner company while eight others comiected to the construction contractor company.

¶5Though it was pointed out tliat in tlie impugned order dated

10.09.2014 whereby the petitioners have been .summoned by the Crl, M.C. J873/2015 & connected Page 6 of54 r: Metropolitan Magistrate, there is a reference to Section 179 of the Factories Act which was wholly uncalled for, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that it having been well-understood by all concerned that the summoning order is for the offence under Section 47 of the Building and Construction Workers Act on account of breach of the rules framed thereunder, they press these petitions for quashing of the said summoning order on merits on the' grounds indicated hereafter.'

¶6The petitions of the land owner company (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2064/2015), .its Chairman Mqhit Gujral (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2067/2015), its Managing.Director,'Rajeev Talwar (petitioner in Cii.M.C.2066/2015) and itSvPif'dctprs: .Shriram Khattar, Ashok Kumar Tyagi and Sudhir S4#h(p^&rs in Crl.M.C.2160/2015, 2159/2015 and 2158/2015 resp^ctiv,|ky)|'|)rimarily contend that the constiuction contract having'iDeeh"!entru.s|j6'^ to the said other,company, the work being carried oiit.-un% the, supervision and control of the latter through its sub-contractor, it having no connection whatsoever with the day-to-day activity, it had no role to play or nexus with any of the acts of commission or 'oinissidn .bn'fte'"basis of which accusations have been leveled, no case also being made out of vicarious liability under the criminal law.

¶7Neither the construction contractor company nor two of the other accused connected thereto - Mr. Daljit Singh and Mr. Harish Vaid - described as Project Director and Manager (Industrial Relations) respectively in-charge of the construction site, have come ■.\ Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Pavel of54 I ■ . ■ ■ ii up to this court with any plea assailing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of the afore-mentioned offence or summoning each, of them. Six (6) others, connected to the said construction contractor company^ however, are before this court, with similar petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as aforesaid, they being A.M. Naik, Group Executive , Chairman (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2069/2015); K. Venlcataramanan, CEO and MD (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2068/2015); M.V. Rotwal, whole-time Director and President (Heavy Engineering) (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2070/2015); S.N. Subrahmanyam, whole-time Director and Senior Executive Vice President (Infrastructure I .and Construction) (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1873/2015); R. Shankar Ramah,\whole-time Director & CFO (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2072/2015); and Shailender Rao, whole-time Directoi and Senior Executive Vice President (Corporate Affairs and Power) (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2071/20i.5). The thmst of the arguments of this set of petitiohefs is that .given their position in the hierarchy in the construction contractor cdmpany, having regard to the measuies that had been put in position under their directions, in strict compliance of and adherence to the law, The work in question having been entrusted to a sub-contractor, their representative being in-charge of the project at site, they cannot be held accountable under the principle of vicarious liability for the penal offence under the special law which has been invoked by the prosecution before the Metropolitan Magistrate, and in which they have been summoned such proceedings being abuse of the law. Crl. M. C. 1873/2015 & comected g

¶8The petitions'have been resisted by the respondent State (the complainant). Since they have arisen out'of the same case and bring a challenge to the same order, they have been heard together. During the course of hearing, references were made to certain communications that had been exchanged between the companies (accused) on one hand and the statutory authorities on the other. For clarity, the complainant was directed by order dated 24.09.2018 to file an affidavit explaining its position, vis-a-vis the said documents and in compliance a reply dated 28.09.2018 styled as reply affidavit to the supplementary documents was •brought on record by the respondents O on 29.09.2018.

¶9The Building and Construction Woflcers Act was brought on the statute book enforced w.e^ "O.i.03.,199'6 with the objective of regulating the employment and conditions of service of building and other construction workers.-jaiat'%;ifsbf^^^<)r their safety, health and ' welfare measures and fdti;:'Oti|er 'ihja^^^^ therewith or incidental thereto. ' - n

¶10The expression '''building or other Construction work" is defined by Section 2(1 )(d) to medn, iriter alia, "the construction, alteration, repairs, maintenance or demolition, of or, in relation to, buildings... ". There is. no dispute that the works being carried out at the site in question in the name and style of DLF Capital Greens Project, in the course of which the fatal accident occurred, were "building or other construction work" within the meaning of the I statute. The "building worker" is defined by Section 2(1 )(e) to mean I I i i j jC/-/. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected li W ^ } ' I \ i [ f ; f j "a person who is employed to do any skilled, semiskilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, in connection with any building or oflier construction work". There is no dispute that Ankit Kumar, whose death due to fall on 17.05.2014 has led to the criminal action was engaged as a "building worker" at the project site in question within the meaning of the said expression.

¶11The meaning and import of three other expressions - "contractor", "employer", and "establishment" being germane to the issues that have been raised, their deiinitipnsi as appearing in clauses

(g), (i) and (j) of Section 2fl) of .thf'gilding ,and Construction Workers Act, may be taken note of.as uiKier;- "(g) "contractor" mearis. a' person who undertakes to produce a siven result for anvlkstdblishment. other than a mere supply of gooflsi manufacture, by the employment of buildim wbrkersl'drwho supplies building workers for any work.of the esidbMlflnent; and includes a sub-contractor; - ^

(i) "employer", in relation to an-establishment, means the owner thereof, anddmludes, - ,. ;

(i) in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Government, directly without any contractor, the authority specified in this behalf, or where no authority is specif.ed, the head of the department;

(ii) in relation to a building or other construction work carried on by or on behalf of a local authority or other establishment, directly Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 10 of54 I .A ' '2^ without I anpy. Qontrctctor, the chief executive officer'of il^nt■authority or establishment;

(Hi) in) j relation id a huildinff ' or other construction work carried on by or though a contractor r or .by 'tfif employment of building workers) ^upplied ■by; a contractor, the contractor:

(j) ''establiskmM^tf mmcins any establishment belonging to, or under 'die conirol ojf Government, any body corporate or firm, an individual, or association or other body of individuals which, or who. employs building; workers in anv'.'hmldins or other construction work: and includes an establishment .belonging to a contractor, but does not include an. individual-who employs such workers in any building or construction work in relation to his own residence the total cpstr of ..stich icons not being more than rupees ten lakh; " ■ P- •J' i r (emphasis supplied)

¶12It is clear from the :dbo-^e^m0te|)definitions that the "contractor" in relation to a building oJ.^p^er.^eo^^eliQn work may be a person / other than owner of the sub|hdh>prppeEt^^ instance such work is undertaken. As would be' seen with reference to certain other provisions of the law, thei responsibility for the safety measures is of the person who falls witliiri" the description "employer", qua the building worker. It is the "employer" who constitutes the "establishment" which is duty bound, under the law and the rules framed thereunder, to put in position, the requisite safety measures.

1.5. • It would be of advantage to bear in mind the broad scheme of law in force by the Building and Construction Workers Act. Besides conceiving of certain statutory authorities including advisory or expert Crl. M.C. 1.873/2015 & connected ■ • Page I} of 54 10^ y) ccnpulso!! " ' - 'y registration of establishments (Chapter III) as also uilding workers as beneficiaries (Chapter IV). I. confers certain role upon authorities in the government the "e per section orv-t • "^PP^opnat, government" buildin, k s"uh establishment as "employs buMng workers either direetfy or through a contractor" being the ~ent of the State in Which such establishment is situate.. detl ^ of building t^orkers") (Section fcet-ho-iats for nomial working day registers a d of registers and records CSection •' I certain ners • of employment of certain persons in certain bui.lainb.'orother.eon<,t ^ otiier construction work (Section 31). w«, 3i,, |S,S" ), Canteens, etc. (Section^3;f^,";i'; • -;y li/rr" ■*■"* ■'' » to the present caSp, ; It .confers, by Section 4n appippriate government to ■^ihakl'rtle =4' th ^ building workers the n,l of ters, the lules envisaged wherehv Hn oin Section (2) the following:- ®-^oyer, per sub-be safely done from the oi-o, j cannot-Crl. M.C. 1873/20]5 & connected c

(e) the erection, installation, use and maintenance of hoists, lifting aooliances and lifting gear including periodical testing and examination and heat treatment where necessary, precautions to be taken while raising or lowering loads, restrictions on carriage of persons and appointment of competent persons on hoists or other lifting appliances; I

(o) the keevins of safety nets, safety sheets and safety belts where the special nature or the circumstances of work render them necessary for the safety of the workers;

(p) the standards to be complied with regard to scaffolding, ladders and stairs,, lifting appliances, ropes, chains and accessories,, earth-moving equipments and floating operational-equipments; (^) hhe safety volicv, that is toPslqf a policy relating to steps to be taken to ensure ikp;^effty and health of the building workers, the admnfstrative arrangements therefor and the matters connected therewith, to be framed by the employers and contractors for the operations to be carried on in a building or. othef .construction work: ('^) other matter corieermm iihpi safety and health of workers working in dhy^offlMffpfffftfons being carried on in a building or other construetidh work. " (emphasis supplied)

¶16This power to make rules 'specific to the subject of "rules for safety and health of building workers" is to be read with the general pi0vision contained in Section 62 (power to make rules) vested in the appropriate govermnent. Section 41 similarly entrusts the lesponsibility of framing of model rules for safety measures unto the central government. Crl. M.C. 1S73.O015 & connected Page 13 of54 I

¶17There are two specific provisions of the Building and Construction Workers Act as spell out "responsibility of the employer" vis-a-vis the.statutory command for "safety and health measures to be put in position. They read thus:- "38. Safety Committee, and safety officers.-(1) In every establishment wherein five hundred or more building woi kers are ordinarily employed, the emylover shall constitute a Safety Committee consisting of such number of representatives of the. employer and the building workers as may be prescribed by the State Government: Pi ovided that the number of persons representing the workers, shall, in no case, be less than the persons o representing the employer.

(2) In every establishment referred to in sub-section (]), the employer shall nbo appoint a safety officer who shall possess such qualifications and. perform such duties as , may be prescribed. '■

¶44Responsibility of employers!.-^, employer shall be responsible for provijini i eimfimt and adequate supervision of any bidldingpr. ■.othepeonstruction work in his establishment as to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act relating to. safety and for talcing all practical steps necessaiw to prevent accidents. " (emphasis supplied)

¶18The above-noted statutory provisions declare unequivocally that it is the employer vis-a-vis a building or other construction project who is responsible for arranging all the prescribed safety measures and for due compliances to be ensured, the same inclusive of a "safety committee" and a "safety officer". Having regard to the scheme of the statute, a contractor" having undertaken to carry out the construction Cd. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 14 of54 work for and on behalf of the land owner, and also being the person who "employs building workers" in such work, also talees on the responsibility towards safety and health measures from the latter.

¶19For completion of narration, it may be added that Section 39 casts a duty on "the employer" to give notice, in the manner prescribed, to the specified authority in the event of-an accident occurring in its establishment, it resulting in death or bodily injuiy incapacitating a worker for a certain period, this for the purpose of investigation or inquiry by such authority as may be deemed ■necessary. In the present case, the notice of the accident was concededly given and the inquiry helilhy the concerned statutory inspectorate. '

¶20The Building and Construction: porkers Act also requires a prior notice of commencement' ofbuiiding or construction work to be given, the mandatory information requis|o for such purposes being as indicated in the following provisiPn:r,.t:;,.v; li-v

46.^ Notice of commencemeht of building or other construction worltr employer shall, at least thirty days before the of nnyMldins: or other cnn.tr.,nHrtr. ...w, , ' spd or^ cause to be sent to the Inspp.ntnr having jurisdiction in the area where the proposed building or ■ other construction work is to be executed, a written notin. -. containing- ~

(a) the name and situation of the place where the building '^"fconstructionworkis proposed to he carried on; Cil. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected P age 15 of 54 D

(b) the name and address of the person who is undertaking the building or other construction work;

(c) ^ the address to which communications relating to the building or other construction work may be sent;

(d) the nature of the work involved and the facilities, including any plant and machinery, provided;

(e) the arrangements for the storage of explosives, if any, to be used in the building or other construction work; (f the number of workers likely to be employed during the various stages of building or other construction work;

(s) tb.^ name and desimation of the person who will be in ^ charge of the buMdim-kr kdth:^^ construction, wnrk fj at the site: ^

(h) the approximate duration cffhe^ork;

(i) such other, matters as may be prescribed.

(2) any change occurs;, in !my of the particulars furnished under sub-^emon .;pU^^^^ employer shall intimate the changefia ^le■'Mspp&tor_within two days of suchchange. > ^ - j.:.

(3) Nothing .contained in subNdctwn (1) shall apply in case of such class of building or other construction work as the appropriate-fdoyernment may hymotification specify to be emergent worksN; - -a' ■ .. ' ' (emphasis supplied)

¶21The above-quoted provision only re-inforces the conclusion that the responsibility towai'ds due compliances with health and safety measures prescribed by the law and rales framed thereunder is primarily of the "employer", a person engaged as "a contractor" for canying out the construction work, also vested with the authority to yi-C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 16 of54 employ building workers being the "employer". The person deputed as "one m overall charge" is the representative of "the employer", the employer being answerable and accountable for all acts of commission or omission done by such representative "incharge of the project" or those working under his control. Pertinent to add, the duty to intimate, m advance, commencement of the constmction work (by prescribed notice) is not of the land owner but of the "employer", such statutory notice requiring it to be specified, amongst others, the particulars of the person who would be accountable in the capacity of he being "in overall charge".

¶22In exercise of tiie powers confepa apon the said authority in exercise of the powers conferred by"thf Building and Construction Woikers Act, the lieutenant gqyei-npr pf (he Govt. of NOT of Delhi made and notified Rules which ^arei(cal|fcd the Delhi Building and Other Construction Woitfers-'ifBegpli^^^^^ of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rulfes-ZOiOa ( Rules for short).

¶23The criminal complaint (from which the present proceedings arise) refers specifically, to-breach oriqes.-.SP (Health and safety policy), rule 42 (Slipping, tripping, 'cutting, drowning and falling hazards), rale 178 (Safety belt and its use), rule 179 (Safety net and its use), rale 196 (Guardrails) and rale 209 (Safety officer) of the Delhi Rules. All these Rules fall in different Chapters of third part (Safety and Health).

¶24Rules 39 and 42 appeal-in the sixth chapter (general provisions), rules 178 and 179 in sixteenth chapter (Catch Platform and Hoardings, Crl, M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Chutes, Safety Belts and Nets), rule 196 included in nineteenth,chapter (Scaffold), while rule 209 forms part of the provisions of twenty-first chapter (Safety Organization).

¶25The offence to answer which the.petitioners, and three others, have been summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate is defined and provided for in Section 47 of the Building and Construction Workers , Actasunder;-

¶47Penalty for contravention of provisions regarding safety measures.- (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of any rules made under section 40 shall be punishable ^ with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three or with fine wMich may; extend to two thousand rupees, or with both, . a' nfi irt fike^fase of a continuing contravention, with anl'odiMdnfif^f which may extend to one hundred rupees fbr.i&VBryhd^ during which such contravention continues fifter cpfivfction for the first such contravention. II , i(^

(2) If any person who has; "^emfd^pcted of any offence punishable under guilty of an ' offence involving a of compliance of the same , provision, he shall be punishable on a subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six m.onths, or witfifine'which shall not be less than five hundred rupees but which may extend to two thousand rupees or wifh. both: Provided that for the purposes of this sub-section, no cognizance shall be taken of any conviction made more than two years before the commission of the offence for which the person is subsequently being convicted: Provided further that the authority imposing the penalty, if It IS satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances CrI. M.C. 1873/201.5 cS connected Page IS of 54 warranting such a course may, after recording its reasons in writing, impose a fine of less than five hundred rupees. "

¶26It is the contravention of the rules relating to health or safety measures which constitutes the offence provided by Section 47 quoted above, and for tins, mens rea i.e. the intention to commit the breach of the rules or abetment thereof on the part of the person sought to be prosecuted is pre-requisite. The case at hand is not one of any of the accused having been previously convicted for such offence and, therefore, the, enhanced punishment is not attracted. Having regard to the pumshment prescribed, the criminal case comes up before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate as one which may be tried summarily.

¶27As observed above, it is the contravention of the provisions of the Rules on the subj ect of ^sa^ty andl Health of building workers as envisaged in Section 40, which is iiiadh-phiai'shable. Though the Delhi Rules have been framed and nptiRcdvwiiMS^ to the rule making power conferred on the approplhte government by section 62, having legai.d to the subjects that are thereby covered, there can be no dispute that such rules have been framed also in exercise of the power under section 40. I I

¶28The complainant presses the criminal prosecution against the petitioners primarily on the principle of vicarious liability and, for this, the provision contained in Section 53 of the Building and Constmction Workers Act is cmcial. It reads thus:- M.L. 1873/2015 & connected c< It

(1) Where, an offence under I this Act has been committed by a company, every person . 0, at the time the offence was commuted, was in chnrac qL a^was reyonsihie to, the company for the condnrfof the business of the cnmpjmy, as well as the company, shall J. deemed to he <nnlty_ of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall I ZLZt "Z"" ""y P""''hment, me ^ ^ offence was cnmmiHi,rl without -hi, lmpwledge_pr that he had exercised all due dilio.u." to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Sothwithstandineanvthmp-containedin lifes any offence under, thislffet kds been committed by a yppary and it, is proved: -tHaf ithe ofTeur-e has been "f ef PmseM-ieit'titanvmance of I attributable to arm nefflect rmtghh t-"~t of any dircctr.,. director manager, secretary -Or. .other officer shall be ^^2y^fJ2S^Mi!tyM^^ and shall be Habile pi oceeded against cmfdp;pMsked'4cgprdm For the.piupose^tC^fl^ flL boP corporate and includes a Jii m or other association, of individuals; and

(b)^ directorm relimny p^^^yts a partner in the (emphasis supplied)

¶29As was highlighted during the course of hearing, not only by the learned counsel representing the petitioners, but also by the Counsel for the State (the complainant), the afore-quoted provision of Section 53 .s almost identical with similar provisions concerning vicarious CrLM.C. 1S73/2015 & connected ' ' ' . c V liability contained in other criminal laws to the effect of which some detailed reference shall need to be made later. ' It is clear from the bare reading of the statutory clause that where the offence is committed by a company, in order to rope in any other person on the prmciple of vicarious criminal liability, it must be shown that such person was "tn-charge of and was responsible to the company" for the conduct of its business "at the time the offence was committed". The proviso to Section 53(1) permits a person arraigned on the principle of vicarious' liability to plead and show by evidence, m defence, that he was nop responsible either because the acts constituting the offence were committedTVfrteaf his knowledge" or because he had "cxercisedimthe dO^ekMctoprevem thecommissicn of such offence". Notwithstanaing.lhp (fiam provision contained in Section 53(1), the prosecution may;b||iii|ated against "any Director, Manager, Secretary or othfr:-c0erC0ffMpmrpcmy" if there is proof available to show that the difenfefttyas,ad||^teed "with the consent or connivance of, or is attrihutaUe to ahf neglect on the part of such director, manager, secretary .or other officer.of the company. While section 53(1) .relies on ^feem%''-due:iO%e position of the person vis-a-vis the company."in-cWge o/' and' "responsible to", section 53(2) necessarily requires positive evidence to show active participation reflective of "consent", "connivance" or "neglect".

¶31In the criminal complaint on which the impugned order of summoning I has been passed, tiiere is reference to similar fatal accidents having occurred previously at the project site in question on CH. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 2 i of54

04.09.2011, 11.04.2012, 16.08.2012, 28.02.2013, and 16.01.2014 as. I well. The present complaint dated 14.08.2014 cannot be treated as a complaint with reference to such previous incidents for two prime reasons; one, there are no averments as to the breach of any specific rules within the meaning of section 47 vis-a-vis the previous incidents, and, second, the criminal action vis-a-vis such earlier incidents would be barred by limitation as provided in Section 55 of the Building and Construction-Workers Act.

¶32It is the admitted case of the complainant that the building construction work in the course of which the fatal accident occurred on 17.05.2014 had been entrusted by'-the land owner company, I • C through a fonnal contract to the consttuetiph-contractor company. It is indicated in the complaint itself tbidt ihe construction contractor company had got itself registered with the statutory authority of the appropiiate government in eomplianee'' with the requirements of Section 7. The certificate: of-registration-'-describes the construction contractor company to-be the "estdbUshment" for purposes of construction of "DLF Capital Greens Project" by it, it being a project of residential building", the work'.-to be carried out during O

02.01.2012 to 17.11.2014, its representative Mr. Surinder Mohan being the •'employer" in-charge of the construction work at site. It is an undisputed case here that the construction contractor company had given the intimation about the commencement'^ of the work in compliance with section 46. It is also admitted that the intimation Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected ' 22 of 54 about the fatal accident was given | by the construction contractor company abiding by its responsibility under Section 39.

¶33After setting out the facts pertaining to the fatal accident on

07.05.2014, while referring , to the; previous such incidents, and describing the positions of the petitioners (as indeed of three others i who are not before, this court) vis-a-vis the two companies, the complainant has narrated its case in manner the complaint in the following

¶3That Sh. Mohit^ , Gujrdl, Chairman, Sh. Rajeev Talwar,-Managing Director, Sh. Sriram. Khattar, Director, C' ^shok Kuamr Tyagi, Director, Sh. Sudhir Sahgal, Director of M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., Shopping Mall, 3'"' ' Floor, Arjun Marg, DLF Cit^. mcL E, DLF Phase 1, Sector 2 6A, Gurgaon, Hafyana 122002 are the Directors and Sh. A.M. i 'Naik, Group Executive Chairman, Sh. K. Venkataramman, CEO & MD, Sh. M. V. Kotwal, Whole time Director^■&,..pfesident. Heavy Engg., Sh. S.N. Subrahmanyan, Whole ittmg> Director & Sr. EVP (Infrastructure & cdpstrnptiphf ^^r'R, Shankar Raman, Whole time Director dc'CFO/MM MaUendra Roy, Whole tike Director & Sr. EVP (Corporate affairs & power) and , Sh. Daljit Singh - Project. Director, (In-charge of the-construction site) of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. are the 'Directors " of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and Sh. Harish Vaid, Manager (Indl. Relations) is the Manager of the construction site within the meaning of Section 53 of the said Act (hereinafter called the accused for the purpose of the Act, in the present case).

¶4That on dated 17.05.14, at about 3.50 PM, an accident reportedly occurred at the construction site namely "Capital Green Projects" located at 15 Shivaji Marg Delhi-15 at tower no. 14 having 21 floors. Upon inspection of the 'Construction Site' on 18.5.2014 at 11.00 Crl. M.C. I873.QQ15 & connected j 2i of 54 c AM and further investigation on 24.5.14 at 4.00 PM along with Sh. R.N. Dahiya, Director (ISH) and Sh. J.N.Jain, Dy. Director (ISH)/Inspectors of Building & Construction, it was revealed that a worker namely Ankit Kumar, Painter, was working in tower No. l4 on the-eighteenth floor and was reportedly engaged in the work of applying paint on the face of the wall, fell to the ground, causing him severe injuries resulting in death.

¶5That besides this, prima facie, it appeared on inspections that the manasement failed to ensure adequate site mana2ement as envisaged in the provisions of the Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and the Delhi Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation^ of Employment and Conditions of bervice) Rules, 2002. Manasement had not taken all approvriate measures .as per I die said Act and Rules framed thereunder to prevent accidents at building site of such proportion and magnitude, :

¶6That there have been. 5 fatal\accidents resulting into loss of lives of 5 workers in the recent past, at the same-site. But, it is clear that they hdd'not learnt any lessons out of previous series of fatal accidents. Apart from notices, a prohibitoiy order, was also issued to. them to stop the_j^mstructipn work of entire site till complete/full compliances of all the safet\! provisions as mentioned in the said Act and Rules frames thereunder as applicable on the construction site of this magnitude were made.

¶7That further, repeated deaths clearlv pointed to neglect_ and commissions & omissions and lack of due diligence towards all aspects of -hum-an lives, safety and M^elfare at their site as envisaged in the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.

¶8That diming the course of inspection and investigation, the following breach of the provisions of the "said Rides " read with the "said Act" were observed:- Crl. M.C. 1873/20/5 & connected I Pa^e'>4 of54 I. That the workers working at height were not . provided with safet\> belts and Personal Fall Arrest Systems fPFAS), in contravention of provisions of "Rule 42 and 178 of the said Rules. " II. That the safety nets were not provided, at the construction site where the workers were allowed to work at height, in.contravention of provisions of Rules 42 and 179 of the said Rules. III. That the platforms and balconies, from where a worker is liable to fell, had not been provided with suitable & safe suardrails and toeboards of adequate strength in contravention of the provisions of Rule 196 of the said Rules. IV. That, more than- .500; i.e. 2700 workers were ordinarily employed at the construction site but Safety Officers as per qualification dfid 'condition of service.as laid down in Schedule.VIII of the mid Rides had not-been appointed, in conti'aventioh'of the provisions of Rule 209 of the said Rules readwithSectim §8 of the said Act. V. That the manag&nMtsihavefhot implemented their Health & Safety. : Hmfjkker and spirit, in contravention of

¶9That the above accused persons are thus 2uiltv of contravenin£ the provisions of Rules 39.42.178.179.196 and 209 of the said:..Rules..read wMfh-Sections 38,40 and. 53 of the said Act which is'punishabte 'under section 47 of the "Said Act" for an imprisonment for a term which may extent to 03 months or with a fine-which may extend to Two Thousand Rupees or with both. " (emphasis supplied)

¶34The reference to the prohibitory order having been issued by the statutory authority on 26.05.2014 vis-a-vis the project site, being a Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected subsequent action, there is .no case of any violation of the said prohibitory order.

¶35In the complaint, aside from certain other documents, reference was made to inspection fonn/reports dated 18.05.2014 and

24.05.2014, show cause notices dated 26.05.2014 and 04.07.2014, leply dated .18.06.2014 of.the land owner company and replies dated

04.06.2014, 17.06.2014 and 04.08.2014 of the construction contractor company. The reply dated 17.06.2014 of the constmction contractor company, in turn, referred to letters datjsd 20.05.2014, 03.06.2014,.and

25.04.2013 and health and safety pplicy, as oommunicated vide letter dated 25.04.2013. As mentioned.earlier, pursuant to the directions issued, by order dated 24.09.2018, the complainant has filed the counter-reply dated 28.09.2018. In this: reply, the exchange of the abovesaid correspondence, reliance; whereupon is made by the petitioners, has been acknowledged.- ; 7

¶36The documents in whidh>refer|A^^ is no dispute,' upon perusal, show that the land owner company had entered into a contract on 29.03.2012 with , the construQtio.ri contractor company. Concededly, the general conditions, of the said contract, as form part of its third annexure, clearly reveal that the construction contractor company had taken over the entire responsibility for every aspect of constmction including safety compliances, liability towards insurance and labour laws. The following stipulations in the contract need to be extracted for confinnation of the above aspect:- '7P. 0 SAFETY PROCEDURE CH. M.C. 1873/201-5 & connected Page 26 of54 7P. 1 The contractor shall incorporate in his overations the requirements of all the 'Safety Code<i' issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards and provisions of the National Building Code of India 2005 including any amendments, thereof The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Services) Act, 1996 and any other applicable statutory rules and regulations. These requirements shall apply in all cases except where the regulations of the local authority require more stringent measures, to be taken. Where the requirements of BIS Codes and/or National Building Code,. the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulations of Employment and Conditions of Services) Act, 1996 are duplicated by the local regulations or the "Safety Manual" provided by the Owner,- , tfe-I mope stringent of these ^ regulations shall be deemd, . The Safety Manual provided by the Owmr. -is and shall not cast any liability on the^OWnePff f ( The contractor shall moyidefsafe means of access to all workins places. , ' f'- ' (.•' The contractorssMh BkrsM^ responsible for orover desWn of the-scnff6ldim<Atiemporarv accesses. ladders and ramvs. 'formwOrMfand' hoistins arrangements. I cranes etc. to ensure'safety''d£iw.brkmen as well as: the I works. All scaffolds, ladders and other safety devices shall be maintained in safe conditions. Only -tubular scaffolding shall he used. ' v P. ^ All necessary personal safety/protective equipment. first aid Idt. medically trained personal fullv equipped ambulance and any other facilities as per the statutoiw requirements should be always available on the site for use. The contractor shall take adequate steps to eu^ura proper maintenance and use of eaumment by his ^yyrployees/stafflpersonnel and workers.

79.5 Adequate precautions shall be taken to prevefit danger from electrical equipment. Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected pPage 27 of 04 ( /

79.6 No materials on the site of work shall be so stacked or placed as to cause danger or inconvenience to any person or the public.

79.7 The contractor shall provide and maintain all necessary temporary fire protection and fire fighting facilities at the site during the execution of the works in accordance with the National Building Code ofIndia 2005 and the statutory regulations. The contractor shall ensure that all gases, fuel and other dangerous and. explosive materials and goods are stored, and handled in a safe manner and in accordance with the statutory regulations.

79.8 The contractor shall notify the ensineer immediatelv of any occurrence of mishaps or accidents that results in death or iniurv (including grievous injury) as defined in the Indian Penal Code. Such initial notifi.cation may be verbal and confirmed in writing "thereafter and shall be followed by. a comprehensive written report within 24 hrs of the occurrence/incident.^ The • contractor I shall duly complete standard forms fis .reqiiir^d by the engineer and I statutory authorities. ' I is made clear thai the'contractor alone as the Principal Emploverj. is I ■ansiv.erd&e/ and liable to all investisatins and lesdl oiMiN'itiefMcluding-Court of Law and the Owner shall not have anv part or liability in this regard. The Contractor alone shall be responsible and liable to compensate the victims- -.iinmediately on the occurrence of the mishaps or accidents and also protect and indemnify and hold harmless the owner, the engineer and all persons who may be associated with or connected with the owner or the engineer and to reimburse all legal andfinancial costs, if incurred, by the them in this regard,

19.10 All consequences, damages or losses arising. bv reason of anv violation of the safetv requirements residtinc in any injwy or loss of life to the contactor's or anv sub contractor s Emplovees/Staff/personnel and. Workers/Third Party (non-fatal/fatal) shall be met bv the contractor who Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected 28 of 34 'KT alone wi.ll be responsible for handling and disposal of the accidental cases with Government/non-Government authorities. The Contractor shall be bound to pay compensation to the persons for the injuries sustained or death owing to neglect of the safety precautions should any claim proceedings be filed against the owner/engineer. The contractor hereby agrees to ind.emnify the owner and the engineer against all liabilities and keep the owner, his employees, personnel, agents, representatives and anyone connected with the owner, protected from civil and criminal prosecution in such cases and be answerable for the same before all authorities.

79.11 Within one week of commencement date, the contractor shall submit /to the ensineer. a detailed and comprehensive contract shall submit to the ensineer, a detailed and comprehensive contract specific site safety plan, based on the requirements. stated in clause 79.1 above. The site safety plan shall include detailed policies, procedures and resulafiohs-.which, when implemented will ensure safety of all the persons, including third parties on or in the vicinity of the site (including without limitation persons to whom access idtke'sitpihds been allowed by the contractor). The contractor I khdlh likb.m time to time as necessary, produce supDtetkent$::tQH&-site safety plan such that it is at all times d' detailed, comprehensive and contemporaneous statement by the contractor of his site safety and industrial, health, obliga,tions, responsibilities, policies and procedure (under the laws of India) or as stated in the contract or elsewhere relating to work on site.

79.12 Any omission, inconsistency or error in the site safety plan or the Engineer's concurrence or rejection of the Site Safety Plan and/or supplements thereto shall be without prejudice to the Contractor's obligations with respect to Site safety and industrial health and shall not excuse any failure by the contractor to , adopt proper and recognized safety practices throughout the execution of works. Crl. M.C. 1873/2G15 & connected

79.13 The contractor shall adhere to the Site Safetyj Plan and shall ensure that all sub-contractors of all tiers, have copy of the Site Safety plan and comply with its provisions. The contactor shall appoint a ciualified and experienced person as Site Safety Officer to act as Manager of the Site Safety Plan and who will be responsible for all safety matters related to the works. The contractor shall, from time, to time, provide such other personnel and resources as may be required to ensure effective operation of the Site Safety Plan. The said Site Safety Officer shall submit regular safety reports to the Engineer in accordance with the requirements of the Engineer and all relevant statutoiy authorities, . as required by Applicable laws and regulations. The contractor shall submit on a monthly basis a Certificate of Compliance for Health, Safety and Environment as given in Appendm "MS " ; . ■' :/ (emphasis supplied)

¶37It appears that in the walce of the fatdl incident that occurred on

28.02.2013 (death of Maqboor)iatthe.same veiy site, prohibitory order followed by revocation order, ;had beend's'sued on 01.03.2013 and

08.03.2013. Against the 4aid" back^rbp^ ' construction contractor company had taken steps for •gettih^ fhe'..safety audit of the project done. An audit report dated 03.04.2013 was submitted to the authorities by the said company'underdhe cover of its letter dated

25.04.2013. Reference to the said audit report and the correspondence exchanged in such regard was made by the construction contractor company in its letter dated 17.06.2014, which is part of the material that was submitted with the criminal complaint leading to the impugned order being passed. In the reply affidavit dated 28.09.2018, the complainant also confirms that National Safety Council (NSC) which had conducted the said safety audit had given a satisfactory CrI. M.C.I 873/2015 &comecled icport in respect of the safety measures that had been adopted by the management of the said company and, in view of such audit report, the construction work was allowed to be resumed. I 38. As noted earlier, it is admitted case even for the complainant that in terms of the, intimations that had been given, Mr. Daljeet Singh, the Pioject Director of the construction contractor company, was the person "incharge of the construction site" and Mr. Harish Vaid, Manager (Internal relations) Was the Manager of the Construction Site, within the meaning of Section 53 of" the Building and Construction Workers Act. As also noted .earlier, both the said accused persons have not challenged the summoning ofdey;.

¶39It was also brought out^toring the -pourse of hearing that at the time of inspection(s), leading'to. inspection reports dated 18.05.2014,

24.05.2014 being ,prepared,;iCwd§]\#|D^pet Singh, who was found as the person incharge. of the complainant's offlceis in such .inspection atv^het/sitel. f;> "The report, prepared on inspection can-led out in the forenoon of 18.05.2014, is the most ciucial inspection report ..for purposes of the., case arising out of ..the incident that occurred in the afternoon of 17.05.2014. It concededly C' noted, vi&'-a-vis the requirements of Rules 142, 178 and 179 that Personal Fall Anest System (PFAS) and safety belts had been aiianged but not provided to the workers. It also noted that common safety system had not been provided "at various places", though not specifying the locations where there was such deficiency in due compliance. It confirmed that health and safety policy, as required by CW. M.C. 1873/2015 & comected j j . Rule 39 had been formulated, the breach of the statutory rules was noted for the reason such policy had not been submitted for approval. The report, at the same time, confirmed that the inspecting officer had found and verified that safety committee and emergency action plan in terms of Rules 208 .and 36 respectively were in position, the breach of Rule 209, however, being inferred for the, reason qualifications of the "safety officer" were not shown.. In the brief note of the concluding part of this report, it was flirther observed that the temporary platform from where the worker had fallen did not have the provision of toe board or guard rail. The.inspection report dated 24.05.2014 is in continuation of the report dated 18.05\2014 and mainly noted that Ankit Kumar (the deceased wo.rkef) was'applying paint on the face of the wall at the 18"^ floor level when he had slipped and fallen, to the ground, he not wearing the safety belt pr'BFAS at that point of time.

40.' Pursuant to the inquiries which were raised in the wake of the fatal incident of 17.05.2014, the epnstrucfion contractor company had admittedly sent various letters including letters dated 20.05.2014 and

03.06.2014 followed by another dated 17.06.2014, the last referring to the previous coiTesponderice, .which concededly includes submission ,7 i by the construction-contractor company and yet another safety audit report obtained from National Safety Council, Delhi Chapter, such audit having been undertaken on 24"^ and 25^'^ May, 2014. It was submitted by the construction contractor company that it was in full con'ipliance with the statutorily prescribed health and safety measures, this having been confirmed by the safety audit report of May, 2014, Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected . Page 32 'of 54 the safety policy having been formulated and-forwarded" to the authorities by letter dated 25.04.2014, duly qualified duty safety officers having been deployed at site, the steps taken inclusive of the following:- "2. On site safety measures : a). L&T has deployed (3) Safety Managers, (5) I Safety Engineers (12) Safety Supervisors and (30) Safety Stewards at site to control and monitor the safety measures. ( b). L&T has. provided personal protective Equipment to all y^oid<ie}ts./arid is enforced prior to constructiph siie.entfy. c). The workers.:ode\ljm^d about the hazards involved, in par0$lar actimty: before start of the shift. ' ; : d). L&T has protected the'floor edge with hard barricades. • I e). L&T has protected Ml Openings, cut-outs with reinforcement mat. --'r ' I i f. L&T has closed all lift shafts with gates. g). Safely catchM&ts.ar^-pnoyvded below 6 m of live working floof around periphery to prevent fall of materials, and men. h). All plants and machineries are fitted with safety device and. are frequently inspected and tested for safety compliance.

i). All electrical connections are routed through RCCB, MCB and at source through ELR to avoid any electrocution and overload protection.

¶3Medical and other facilities : Crl. M.C. 1873./2015 & connected ' , a). Round the clock ambidance and first aid facilities provided at site. b). Well maintained canteen at site and workers habitat area. c). Continuous water facilities for drinking and sanitation facilities. d). Mobile toilets at various places at site and permanent sanitation facilities in workers habitat area. Apart from the above, all the-safety and welfare aspects of the workers are duly taken , care of at the work site. That L&T had got the Safety Audit conducted by National Safety Council, Delhi Chapter in the year 2013. The Audit Team after doing extensive^-survey / checking at site, submitted its report. The^'nelpvant excerpts of the reports are as under : : a.), M/s. 'L&T-had pifdyided adequate no. of Safety Officers td fieal tlwitk-the requirements of safety managemfrttfinMdfi^ There is proper work dis-tributipn cdndji^^ifinese. Safety Officers to prevent clash m^re;fitphsifiii^.^^' b). The owner had appointed expert consultant organization M/s. Turner, who has appointed NEBSOH qualified Safety Officers. - c) work at Height permit: In Indian Construction CV majority of fatalities occurs due to fall of workers from height. Due to this high probability, it had become necessary to ensure implementation .of Height Work Permit. Under the permit only those workers are allowed to proceed or work at height for whom safe access — like ladders are provided and safe work place like scaffolds exists there. This system-is provided by L&T as shown to the Auditors. Crl. M.C. J873/2015. cSc comec.ted d) Personal Protective Equipments e The use of safety helmet by all the construction workers was almost 100%. ® The use of safety - belts by those who were working on external side and have potential hazard of fall, was more than 98%, as one worker was found working without anchoring it with rigid support. ® Use of safety shoe was observed almost 100%. e) Lifting Equipment and Tackles M/s L &T had got numerpus lifting equipments and tackles. The safe use-of one lifting equipment was O checked. It was found that the operator was didy trained and the operator and tine signaler were understanding, the signals very well. f) Hazards of Working atHeight L&T had taken the following measures to prevent fall of workers from height: 'IIIIII -■; >, - ■ - . ,yc ® All the openikigk^-dl^S^^r'T^nfyeitions were found covered withEctr'nMUTfffk-d • All the floor edges were suitably fenced with appropriate hand rails. ® The stairs were cleaned fbnprevention of slipping due to slippery floor. r: That in view of the observations of National Safety Council (Delhi Chapter) in its report after conducting extensive ckecks/swyeys on. site, it can be safely inferred that the Establishment has been complying with all the safety norms as required under the law including BOCW (RE&CS) Act. Any mishap, at site despite best protective measures could be an accident only with no human fault or error. L& T has done its best to comply with all the Crl. M.C. 1873/201.5 & connected 91-safety norms, which have been subject matter of surprise checks and the same have been found to be in order. Without prejudice to what is stated above, it is submitted that L & T had also got another Safety Audit Report done during 24-2f^ May, 2014 by the National Safety Council Delhi Chapter and nothing adverse has been reported in the Audit Report submitted. Copy of the Safety Audit report and the relevant photographs of the site are annexed as Annexure A (colly). Further, the establishment has got its audit done from DGFASLI and the report is awaited and the same shall be submitted as and when it is received.

¶41The questions relating to corporate liability and vicarious criminal liability of those connected to a cor]:)orate body have come up in the past before the courts in the context of similar provisions contained in various statutes including, Section 141. of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''Negotiable Instruments Act"); Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, • "Drugs Act"); Section 17(1) of the ■Preventibh ohi''0 Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'PFA Act"); and Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, "Insecticides Act"). ^

¶42On corporate criminal liability, the following observations of a constitution bench of Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank & Ors v.y. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors (2005) 4 SCC 530 provide useful guidance:- "There^ is' no dispute that a company is liable to be prosecuted and punished for criminal offences. Although there are earlier authorities to the effect that Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected 2:7 1^. corporations cannot commit a crime, ' the generally accepted modern rule is that except for such crimes as a corporation is held incapable of committing by reason of the fact that they, involve personal malicious intent, a corporation may be subject to indictment or other-criminal process, although the criminal act is committed through its agents. "xxx' As in the case of torts, the general rule prevails that the corporation may be criminally liable for the acts of an officer or agent, assumed to be done by him when exercising authorised powers, and without proof that his act was expressly authorised or approved by the corporation. In the statutes defining crimes, . the prohibition is frequency directed'against any "person" who commits the prohibited. ae'f .andfin many statutes the term "person" is defifted'. person is not specifically defined,, it peGessanly includes a corporation. It is usually construed idyinclud!e>a^ corporation so as to bring it within the prphibifign dfffie. statute and subject it to punishment In moftfiffljeiStatM^dhe word "person " is defined to include p-co.rpprdfi6.fif xxx Inasmuch as all criminal and quasi-criminal offences are-creatures of statute, the amenability of the corporation to prosecution necessarily depends - upon the terminology employed in the statute. In the case of strict liability, the terminology employed by the legislature is such as to reveal an intent that guilt shall not be predicated upon the automatic breach I of the statute but on the establishment .of the actus reus, subject to the defence of due diligence. The law is primarily based on the terms of the statutes. In the case of absolute liability where the legislature by the clearest intendment establishes an offence where liability arises instantly upon the breach of the statutory prohifition, no particular state of mind is a Qi. M.C 1873/2015 & connected prerequisite to guilt. Corporations and individual persons stand on the same footing in the face of such a statutory offence. It is a case of automatic primary responsihilit)K Therefore, as regards corporate criminal liability, there is no doubt that a corporation or company could be prosecuted for any offence punishable under law, whether it is coming under the strict liability or under absolute liability. XXX All penal statutes are to be strictly construed in the sense that the court must see that the thing charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words on any notion that there has been a slip that the thing is so clearly within the mischief ^ that it must have been intended tO'be included and would ^ have been included iftHought: of^Adlpmal provisions like all other statutes are to be fairly construed according to the legislative intent as,expressed in-the enactment. "

¶43By virtue, inter a//a, of' the registration, dated 22.02.2012 granted to the constructions contractor I'cp,mpany by the respondent under Section 7 of the Building and Construction Workers Ac% the complainant was privy to the above-said contractual arrangement vis-a-vis the project in question-bptween the-land owner company and the r ^ ( construction contractor company.

¶44It is vivid from bare perusal of the provisions of the Building and Construction Workers Act, as indeed the rules framed thereunder, that the land owner company having chosen to outsource the work of the constructions, had passed oh the responsibility for all compliances to be made by the construction contractor company in terms of the Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected ' Page3'8of54 law, and the contractual arrangement, to which detailed references have been made above. It is the construction contractor company which was given the responsibility of carrying out the construction work and, for such purpose, engage the workers. Under the laWi it is the construction contractor company which, in the present case, is the employer" - the establishment which was to make compliances for safety measures to be put in position. There is no responsibility shown of the land owner company, or anyone connected thereto, this having been clearly understood and explicitly so stated even in the contract entered upon by it with the construction contractor company on 29.03.20.12. Thus, neither;the land owner company nor those m-diarge of or responsible to' the conduct of its business I can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 47 of the Building and Construction Workers Act on the facts' set out in the complaint from: which the present petitions arise.

¶45The case against the GonstEUction c^dnfractor company and those stated to be in-charge of or responsible for conduct of its business, however, would stand on a different footing and, thus, need scrutiny separately. I 46. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors., (1983) 1 see I, while dealing with 'the applicability ot Section 17(1) of PFA Act, the Supreme Court observed as under;- "iJ. So far as the Manager is concerned, we are satisfied that from the very nature of his. duties_ it can bc.jpfkbi inferred thnfh'' unAouhtedlv be vicariously liable for the offence; vicarious liability being an incident of an Crl. M. C. 1873/2015 & connected I r: QSmce_under_t^^ So far as the Directors are coricerned, there is not even a whisper nor a shred of evidence nor anything to show, apart from, the presumption drawn by the complainant, ftigithereisanv act committed.bv the Directors from which a reasn-nnhlo ' injerence can be drawn that they could nhn h. v}cariouslv liable In these circumstances, therefore, we fnd ourselves in complete agreement with the argument of the High Court that no case against the Directors (Accused 4 to-7) has been made out ex facie on the, allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings (Against them were rightly quashed. (emphasis supplied)

¶47Following the aforesaid' ruling-,.in construing the effect of Section 34 of tlie Di-ugs Act in a decisionrreported as State ofHaryana vs. Brij Lai Mittal and Ors.. (im) 5 SCC, 343, it was held thus:- S ...the vicarious liability of a -person for being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act by a company arises if at the material time he was in chn.r^rp n-F and was also responsible to the company for the con.d.ur.t of Its business. Simply because a person is a director of the company it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable. I Conversely, without being a director a person can, he in charge of and, responsible to the comnanv fnr the cond.uct of Its business. From the complaint in question we however, find that except a bald, statement that the respondents were directors of the manufacturers, there is no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that they were in charge, of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. " (emphasis supplied) CH. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected I - 5l

¶48The counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330 and Pooja Ravinder .Devidasani vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2014)16 SCC 1 both dealing with issues of vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. (supra), it was observed thus:- ^ provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to makp. n hnl^t I cursoiy statement in a GOmplaint thnt fh^ r^jro^rtrr (arrayed as an accusedf^isMAarge of and rP..,pnpiNihlo to_me company for the conduct^ of the business ofihe company without anything more . as to the role of the Director. But the complamuhpuld spell out as to hn^, and in wha.t manner R.P..'^.pnmr]ant I'-was in charge of nr the aqdmed^Conyoany for the conduct of IS business. This is dnpcohsonance with strict interpretation of penal, mmtksj fmecialh. wh^r. such statutes crea.te vicariouNdihhfldfmir.

¶14^ compimy to make any or all the D' ireetmS" as accused in a complaint merely on the basis of a statement thiat they are m charge of and responsible for the conduct of the busmess of the company without;, anything more is not a sufficient or adequate fulfilment of the requirements under Section 141. (emphasis supplied)

¶49In Pooja Ravinder Devidasani (supra) wliile observing that "a director of a company U liable to be convicted for' an offence ' committed by the company if he / she was in charge of and was ■esponsihle to the company for the conduct of its business or if it is Crl. M.C: !873/2015 connected . " Page 41 of54 r r. proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable, to any negligence on the part of the Director concerned'' and noting that "m the entire complaint neither the role of the appellant in the affairs of the company was explained nor in what manner the appellant is responsible for the conduct of business of the company was 'explained\ the prosecution against the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was quashed.

¶50Wliile examining similar questions vis-a-vis Section 33 of Insecticides Act, in judgment reported as State of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajiv.Khurana, (2010) 11 SCC 469, talcing note of the law which'has developed primarily in the context of'.Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it was held thus:--. "17. The ratio.of all these cases is that the complainant is required to state in the complaint how a Director who is sought to be made an accused, was in charge of the business of the company or responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Every Director need not be and is not in charge of the business of the company. If that is the position with resard to a Director, it is needless to emphasise that in the case of non-Director officers, it is all the more necessary to state what were his duties and resvonsibilities in the conduct of business of the company and how and in M'hat manner he is responsible or liable. " (emphasis supplied)

¶51Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla, Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected (2005} 8 see 89; Gunmala Sales vs. Ami Mehta, (2015) 1 See 103 and Standard ehartered Bank vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016). 6 See 62, all cases' dealing with issues relating to the effect and import of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Taking note of such decisions in Jwala Devi Enterprises P. Lta. vs. Fadi El Jaouni, 2018 ^ SeeOnline Del 10030 this Court culled out the settled law as under:- "14. The guiding principles with reference to Section . 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are . now well settled by judicial pronouncements, some of which have been noted above, may be summarised thus:— . I

(i) It is only those persons who are in charse of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the comvanv at the time of commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 who can be subjected to criminal action with reference to Section 141;

(ii) If the person committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a company, the person who was signatory to the cheque which - is dishonoured is clearlv responsible for the incriminating act and would be liable to be proceeded agaij;ist under Section 141.(2);

(Hi) By virtue of the office thev hold, the persons working in the capacity of the Manasin2 Director or Joint Managing Director are deemed to be in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of the business of, the company and, therefore, can be proceeded against in terms of Section 141; Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 c?- connected

(iv) Merely because a person is a director of the company is not sufficient to make him liable under Section 141, there being. no deemins that by holdins such position he is in charge of, or responsible for the conduct of the business of, the company within the meaning ofSection 141;

(y) It is necessary for the complainant to specifically aver in the complaint that at the time the offence was 'committed, the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of, or responsible for the conduct of the business of, the company in terms of Section 141, there beins no need for further particidars to be siven in the complaint about his role, this beins: subject to proof at the trial:

(yi) The person who has been summoned as an accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of averment that he was director of the company accused, he being in charge of or responsible for the conduct of its business cannot get the complaint quashed by the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely on the ground that no particulars as to his role have been set out in the complaint; and

(vii) The person who has been summoned as an accused for offence under Section 138 of 'the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by invoking the provision contained in Section 141 may persuade the High Court to quash the process in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by furnishins "some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances" substantiating his contention Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected 3^ that he was not in charge of nor responsible for the conduct of the business of the company "at the time the offence was committed" and thereby showing a case that making him. stand the trial would be an abuse of the process of court, but not otherwise. " (emphasis supplied)

¶52Having regard to the statutory scheme and also the stipulations of the contract dated 29.03.2012, there is no escape from the prima facie conclusion that the construction contractor company is not only the principal employer of the workers engaged in the construction project where the fatal accident-took place but was also responsible for arranging all the prescribed safety measured under the Rules. Section 47 read with Section 53 of the Buildihg and Construction Workers Act thus creates a corporate criminahliability against the said company and I by virtue of the principles of vicarious' erifninal liability, every person who, at the time when the said, offence;,wg^ was in-charge of, and was responsible jfliellsaidiebi^^^ny for the conduct of its business, as well as the cor]Qpihy,)-afd-'dbemed to be liable to be proceeded against. Just as in the case of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by virtue of the office they hold, such persons as work in the capacity of a managing director or the joint managing director or, for that matter, persons employed as in-charge of the construction work at site, be it in a managerial position or in any . supervisory position, are deemed to be in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, to the company. They can, therefore, be proceeded against in terms of Section 53. At the same time, however, merely because a person is a "director" of the company is CrL M.C. !873/20!5 & connected 45 of 54 not sufficient to attract Section 53, there being no deeming that by holding such position he is rendered to be one who is 'Hn-charge of or '""responsible to the company''' for the conduct of its business. As is also well settled in the context of prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, though it is necessary to specifically aver in the complaint that the person sought to be prosecuted was in-charge of or responsible to the company for the conduct of its business "at the time the offence was committed", there is no requirement in law for "further particulars to he given" in the' complaint about his role, this being subject matter of proof to be adduced at the trial.

¶53In the considered view of this Conrt, the words "for the conduct of the business of the company''' appearihg in Section 53 are most crucial, pregnant with meaning and provide the key to determine whether a person connected to 'the company may be held accountable for the acts of commission or-ohiission -Gohstituting the offence under Section 47 of the Building^and (Sonstructipn'Workers Act. After all, it is the status of being "in-charge of or being "responsible''' for such business of the company that exposes the individual to vicarious criminal liability. If the act-of commission or omission is attributable to the neglect of the person or on account of his "connivance" or for that matter, with his "consent", sub-section (2) of Section 53 directly attracts the application of penal provision. For the deeming clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 53 to kick in, there has to be a nexus between the area of responsibility of the person concerned, on one hand, and the act of commission or omission leading to the Cii. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected I contravention of the ruies under Section 40, on the othei. To put it more precisely, and clearly, in the context of the offence under Section 47 of Building and Construction Workers Act, the responsibility vis-a vis the specific rule framed under Section 40 (the breach of which is alleged) has to be shown to be in existence for a person connected with the business of the company presumed to be 'Hn-charge'' or ''responsible''. There can be no thumb rule that every person "in-charge of " or "responsible to", for the conduct of the business of the company in the general sense of the term would be vicariously liable under the criminal law whether or not he was expected to play any specific role or discharge responsibility towards a specific rule, at the stage when its breach has led to the-fatality or serious incident.

¶54A different approach tha,h the .one.viabove to the subject might lead to unjust results. This ^may^'^^ illustrated by two simple examples. As noted earfierj-the jenlpldyer {establishment) is duty bound, in terms of Section A'dyK-g), .toygive intimation, prior to commencement of the building' or .other construction work, as to the name and designation of the person who will be in overall charge of the building or such constmctionwOrk.';-Haying regard to the scheme of the enactment and the rules framed thereunder, the employer {establishment) is also responsible to frame a "safety policy (rule 39) and also to appoint and deploy a "safety officer" (rule 209). If the breach relates to default in framing of a written statement of safety policy, or appointment of a duly qualified safety officer, by the establishment, the person appointed as "overall in charge of the Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected h ' "construction work at site''' cannot be held accountable. After all, framing of policy, or appointment of safety officers, as required by law, are matters of policy and subject to decision of the persons at superior levels (unless the authority is delegated to the one who is in-charge at site) including those working as managing director. Similarly, if those responsible for framing or taking of policy decisions or making available all requirements in the nature of manpower (safety officers) or safety equipment (safety belts, safety net etc.) have done their bit and the breach of the rules noted at the level of the supervisory staff at the construction site (i.e. the person in-charge of the construction work at .site, under Section 46 or those assisting him,in the task) they having mot'ensured the safety equipment to be availed of by the workel/S,,the forrher (those responsible for the ; .. i conduct of the business at the higher levels) . cannot be held accountable under the-deeraiftg: ptovisfeni *

¶55It is the • argumenl?-- - tliftNers connected • to the construction contractor coinphhy viz;., A M Naik (Crl.M.C. 2069/2015), K Venkatramanaii (Cii.M;C. 2068/2015), M V Kotwal (Crl.M.C 2070/2015), S.N. Subrahmaifyam'{Crl.M.C. 1873/2015), R Shankar Raman (Crl.M.C. 2072/2015) and Shailendra Roy (Crl.M.C. 2071/2015) that they had discharged their responsibility for due compliances to be made, in letter and spirit, with the provisions of Building and Construction Workers Act and the rules framed thereunder and that the breaches, if any, occurred at the level of the person(s) in-charge of the construction site i.e. Daljit Singh, Project Crl M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Director and Harish Vaid, Manager (Industrial Relations). It is further their argument that it is not correct to-accuse them, under the deeming provision of Section 53, of complicity in the offence under Section 47 in the context of the fatal accident of 17.05.2014 also for the reason that the worker in question (Ankit Kumar) had been engaged by a sub-contractor, the representative of such sub-contractor being the person who has been found responsible in the investigation by police in the corresponding case for IPG offences. In this context, they crave reference to the sub-contract in terms of which the deceased worker (Ankit Kumar) had been, deployed at the 18"^ floor level fi'om ^ where he fell to the ground to suffer mortal injuries.

¶56The copy of the sub-contfaeh niishpwn at the hearing cannot be treated (without proper prOof) ^.as , authentic or '"'"incontrovertible materiar or as one exonerating the constrtiction contractor company of its entire responsibility in tfe -rnatterj-'particularly in view of its continued responsibility vM-drvliS of the sub-contractor as per clause 79.13 of the contract'dated 29.03.2012, referred to earlier. The argument based on the sub-contract, entered upon by. the construction contractor company^v/ith theriinmediate employer of the deceased worker cannot also be accepted at this stage of the proceedings, particularly in exercise of the power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as it involves questions of fact [Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs. Madan Lai Kapoor,

(2013) 3 see 330], Cii. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected

¶57There is no contest to the submission that the construction contractor company, is a group of companies comprising of a large number of subsidiaries (130) and associate independent companies

(15), it being structured in a. manner that each of its such subsidiaries has its own separate Board of Directors and supeiwisory persomiel using the nomenclature of Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Human Resources (HR) Head. The subsidiaries and the associate companies have been incorporated to operate in different schemes or spheres including building and factories, civil infrastmcture,; m'etaMurgical & material handling, power transmission and distribution, hydrocarbon engineering, valves, alloys, power development, infotech, finance, construction and mining machinery etc. .

¶58The complaint on which the summoning order was passed itself describes Mr. A.M. Naik, petitipner in Crl.M.C.2069/2015 to be the-I .1' Group Executive Chairmah-mf.flae^eohstmetion contractor company. Similarly, the description of Mr.'M.Mv'FvOtwal, Mr. R. Shankar Raman and Ml-. .Shailendra Roy - petitioners in Crl.M.C. Nos. 2070/2015, 2072/2015 and 2071/2015, - even as per the complainant has been that they were working at the relevant point of time in the capacities of whole-time Director and President (Heavy Engineering), whole-time Director and Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and whole-time Director and Senior Executive Vice President (Coi-porate Affairs and Power) respectively. By no -stretch of reasoning or logic, these four petitioners can be said to be responsible for the compliances to be CH. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 50 of 54. made with regard to the prescribed safety measures concerning the construction project in question. By virtue of the respective positions each of them held, their responsibilities had no nexus with the subject at hand.

¶59.Unlike the above, it cannot be said that the offices held, or the responsibilities shouldered, by Mr. K. Venkataramanan (petitioner in Crl.M.C. 2068/2015) or Mr. S.N.' Subrahmanyam (jDetitioner in Crl.M.C.l 873/2015) had no connection with the obligations of the establishment of the "emp/oyer" (construction contractor company) towards compliances of the Buiiding :and"Construction Workers Act or ^ the rules framed thereunder. These petitioners do not dispute that at the time of alleged commission of tho offbnce under Section 47 of the Building and Construction Workers Act, ithey were worldng for the construction contractor company; m the/c^iacity of CEO & Managing Director and whole-time Diireigt6f'?&' ^Executive Vice President- (Infrastructure & Construcf|0n).ilsp^fetiVeif,l'"

¶60The very description of the port-folios they held and the responsibilities that would entail^therefrorn facie shows that the allegations in the criminal'complaint as to their deemed liability under Section 53 camrot be,said to be unfounded, not the least without trial.

¶61There is merit-in the. argument of the last two above-mentioned petitioners that given the positions held by them in the company, they could not be expected to remain present at the construction work site to ensure due compliances to be m^de with rules 42, 178, 179 or 196 read with Section 38 of the Building and Construction Workers Act Qi. M.C. 1873/2015 & connected that concern day-to-day use of safety belts, safety nets, safety platforms, or personal fall aiTest systems. But then, it cannot be ignored that in (eighth para of) the complaint (extracted earlier), there are also allegations of breach on account of non-implementation {in letter and spirit) of health and safety policy in tenns of rule 39 and non-appointment of duly qualified safety officers in breach of the requirements of rule 209 read with Section 38 of the Building and Construction Workers Act. These two specific areas cannot, by any stretch of arguments, be relegated to the domain of the managerial staff (f/h'. Daljit Singh and Mr. Harish Vaid) made in-charge of the constinction site. < • C "

¶62The above petitioners, however,' also raise the defence based on the two safety audit reports, one dated p3:.'04.2013 and the other dated 24-25.05.2014. It would be a subject matter of factual inquiiy as to whether the safety audit report: submitted on 25.04.2014, obtained after the fatal accidents in question, can befreated as one representing the correct position prevailing' at the time of commission of the offence. Further, it would be the onus of the defence to show that the certification by audit'report-03.04.2013 would hold good till date of the fatal accident of 17.05.2014. There are specific allegations in the complaint that as on the said date, i.e., 17.05.2014, duly qualified safety officers were not in position they having not been appointed in terms of the obligation of the construction contractor company under rule 209 read with Section 38 of the Building and Construction Workers Act. Since this area v/ould fall prima facie within the Crl. M.C. 1873/2015 & comiected -71 domam of the responsibilities held by petitioners K. Venkataratnanan »d S.N. Subr^"ra"yam,fhey are liable to be proceeded against under the deenting clause of Section SS.' A. the trial, they would have the opportumty, ,n terms of proviso to Section 53(1), to prove that the . breaches constituting the offences were committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of such breaches (or offences).

¶3On the above facts, and in the circumstances, initiation of onmmal action against petitioners - DLF Universal Ltd. (petitioner in I I .C.2064/2015), Mohit Gujral: (peti(i0uer in Crl.M.C.2067/2015) Rajeev Talwar (petitioner in Crl.M:C.2ae6/2015), Shriram Khattar (petnioner in Crl.M.C.2160/2015). AshoKumar Tyagi (petitioner in r .C.2159/2015), I Sudhfr ' .Sahgal (petitioner in r.M.C.2158/2015),'A.M. Naik (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2069/2015); M.V. Kotwal (petitioner imGrthLe.aw/ioiS), R. Shankar Ramari ^etmoner in Crl.M.C. apd'^j^g^dra Roy (petitioner in r.M.C.2071/2015) being unfoundbdf'the continuation of such proceedings against them would be an abuse of the process of law yterefore, their petitions-are, allowed^hnd. the proceedings against Item m the criminal complaint case (CC 55F1/14) pending in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate are hereby quashed.

¶64For the reasons set out above, however, there is no case made out or this court to exercise its inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to-inhibit the criminal proceedings in the a orementioned case against S.N. Subrahmanyam (petitioner in C//. A/.C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 53 of 54 . I 7^ Crl.M.C.1873/2015) and K. Venkataramanan (petitioner in CrI.M.C.2068/2015). In the consequence, the said petitions are hereby dismissed. It must, however, be added that nothing stated above would be treated as final expression of opinion on merits of the case 9-g3.inst th6 said petitioners. The petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed of in above terms. fi^r NOVEMBER 19,2018 . • vk/nk/yg ; Crl. .M.C. 1873/2015 & connected Page 54 of 54'

I I . IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 19^'' November, 2018 + CRL.M.C. 2067/2015 MOHIT GUJRAL Petitioner Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with . ]N^. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Vivek Suri, : ,]Vfr.^K^an^; &-Mr. Mayank Datta, Advs. - versus ; ^ STAra NCT OF DELHI THR. FACTORY INSPECTOR - \i Respondent Through: Mr. I^ukesh KumaL APP. CORAM: ' • i HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K;gAUBA