State of Rajasthan Vs. Kailash Nath & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 2628 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 2628 of 2000)
Petitioner: State of Rajasthan
Respondent: Kailash Nath & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 2628 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 2628 of 2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 04, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Factories Act, 1948
Section 8(1) – Empowerment to check – Notification presumed under Boilers Act – Leave to appeal refused – Notification under Factories Act – Other points in appeal not adverted to. Held that leave to appeal granted and High Court directed to deal with appeal on merits.
(Paras 2 & 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court has declined to grant leave of appeal on the ground that the complainant – P.D. Gupta, had no powers of checking under the Factories Act. The said observation was made presumably on a misunderstanding that the Notification which conferred power on the said complainant was issued under the Boilers Act. The Annexures produced by the State, when read by us, showed that the empowerment was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Factories Act. Apparently, the High Court would not have overlooked such Notifications. That apart, other points involved in the appeal have not been adverted to. This is eminently a case which requires consideration by the High Court in appeal and rejecting the petition for leave at the threshold would have prevented the High Court from going into all the materials available.
3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. The leave applied for, will stand granted. We therefore, request the High Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, after adverting to all the issues involved in the case, in accordance with law.
4. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court has declined to grant leave of appeal on the ground that the complainant – P.D. Gupta, had no powers of checking under the Factories Act. The said observation was made presumably on a misunderstanding that the Notification which conferred power on the said complainant was issued under the Boilers Act. The Annexures produced by the State, when read by us, showed that the empowerment was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Factories Act. Apparently, the High Court would not have overlooked such Notifications. That apart, other points involved in the appeal have not been adverted to. This is eminently a case which requires consideration by the High Court in appeal and rejecting the petition for leave at the threshold would have prevented the High Court from going into all the materials available.
3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. The leave applied for, will stand granted. We therefore, request the High Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, after adverting to all the issues involved in the case, in accordance with law.
4. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
