https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311217 Section 304-A prosecution was not barred merely because the incident also fell within the Factories Act, 1948; the two enactments were held to operate concurrently, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 allowed prosecution under either law subject to the bar on double punishment. However, no prima facie case was shown for framing charge because the record did not establish that the accused were owners, occupiers, managers, or otherwise in actual control of the factory, and it lacked cogent expert material linking the accident to their gross criminal rashness or negligence. Mere family connection and bare allegations of supervision were insufficient, so the charge was discharged. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:28:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311217 Section 304-A prosecution was not barred merely because the incident also fell within the Factories Act, 1948; the two enactments were held to operate concurrently, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 allowed prosecution under either law subject to the bar on double punishment. However, no prima facie case was shown for framing charge because the record did not establish that the accused were owners, occupiers, managers, or otherwise in actual control of the factory, and it lacked cogent expert material linking the accident to their gross criminal rashness or negligence. Mere family connection and bare allegations of supervision were insufficient, so the charge was discharged. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311217