vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1740 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1740 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1740 OF 2008 Markandey Singh ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent a/w CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1741 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1741 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1741 OF 2008 Markandey Singh & anr. ... Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi with Ganesh Gole for Applicants Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JUNE 11, 2008 JUNE 11, 2008 JUNE 11, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The applicant No.2 in Criminal application NO.1741 of 2008 is the Manager while the other applicant in both applications is the occupier of the factory in which two workers have met with an accident while on duty. They are aggrieved by the process issued to them for offences committed under the Factories Act. They are charged with contravening section 7A (2)(C) of the Factories Act. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants is that the complaint does not disclose any offence as the Supervisor had directed the workers to leave the premises, despite which they continued working. He, : 2 : therefore, submits that the applicants cannot be held responsible for the accident nor could it be said that they had committed any offence punishable under the Factories Act. 2. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted at this stage. Whether or not there was a direction given to the workers to leave the premises is something which would have to be considered at the time of trial. Whether the workers have used oxyen instead or nitrogen without any instructions from the employer is a matter of evidence. 3. Applications are therefore rejected.