Madhya Pradesh High Court
Avinash Baheti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-59-2018
(AVINASH BAHETI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
3
Jabalpur, Dated : 23-01-2018
Mr. T.S.Ruprah, learned senior counsel with Mr.Uma
Shanker Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms.Shahin Fatima, learned Government Advocate for the
sh
respondent/State.
e ad
1. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 Pr of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed against order dated 11.12.2017 passed by First Additional Sessions a hy Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.326/2016 whereby ad charges have been framed against the petitioners for offences M under sections 286, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and of Sections 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1980 and section 9(B)(1-b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 and Rule 20 of rt ou Ammoinum Nitrate Rules, 2012.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Trucks C bearing Nos.MP-17/HH-3527 and MP-17/HH-3675 loaded h with the explosives (Ammonium Nitrate) were stationed at ig National Highway No.26 under the Police Station, Suatala H which were endangering human life and there was probability of untoward incident. The trucks were being driven by Rajesh Shukla and Santosh Dubey. On interrogation, they informed that the trucks were loaded with the ammonium nitrate and they were carrying the same from Balaji Traders, Durgapur, Dewas and destined to Solar Industries, Waidhan, District Singrauli. When the documents were checked it was found that the explosive substance (ammonium nitrate) is being carried on a route which was not permitted. The route ought to have been followed was Durgapur (Dewas) to Waidhan via Sagar- Damoh-Katni-Sidhi. But the trucks were stationed on a route near the National Highway No.26 at Narsinghpur. The consignment was to be transported according to the prescribed rules. The same was to be informed to Police of District Dewas as also to the Police of Waidhan (Singrauli). Therefore, it were parked at the wrong place endangering human life without following the route which was prescribed and did not inform the police as mandated. Therefore, the sh offence is made out against the drivers (Rajesh Shukla and e Santosh Dubey).
ad
3. Pr The petitioner No.1 is the Clearing & Forwarding Agent of Deepak Fertilizers and the petitioner No.2 is the a transport provider of vehicles. The petitioner No.1 hy undertakes the job of providing vehicles for transportation of ad petro-chemicals. The petitioner No.2 is the registered transporter. The petitioner No.1 books the transport vehicles M for the purpose of transporting material from Balaji Traders, of Dewas to different locations. In one truck consignment was for 420 bags, each bag containing 50 Kgs. of ammonium rt nitrate which was being transported to Solar Plant at ou Waidhan and the second truck was containing 440 bags of C ammonium nitrate, each bag containing 50 Kgs. from h Durgapur Dewas to Solar plant at Waidhan. ig H
4. After filing the charge-sheet learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for offences under section 286 of the Indian Penal Code for endangering human life for keeping the Ammonium Nitrate in suspicious circumstances in negligent manner. The accused-Lakhpati affixed his photograph on the Identity Card of MaanSingh and committed cheating. In the alternative charges have been framed that the co-accused/Lakhpati has affixed his photo in the Identity Card of Maan Singh and thereby committed cheating in common intention with the petitioners and, therefore, committed offence under section 420 and in the alternative under section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended that keeping the trucks with 21,000 Kg. and 22,000 Kg. of Ammonium Nitrate explosives in suspicious circumstances, the petitioners have committed offence under section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908. Ammonium Nitrate loaded trucks were kept in suspicious circumstances, therefore, committed offences under section 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908.
sh Charge has also been framed for offenced under section e 9B(1-b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, stating that Ammonium ad Nitrate of 21,000 Kg. & 22000 Kgs. were being kept in Pr custody and lastly charge has been framed under Rule 20 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 wherein while transporting a the ammonium nitrate it was transported through the route hy which was not prescribed and for not keeping the security ad guard in the truck, which amounts to breach of Rules.
M
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the of petitioner No.1 is Clearing & Forwarding Agent of Deepak Fertilizers who book transport vehicles for the purpose of rt transporting material for Balaji Traders, Durgapur District ou Dewas. As the new highways have been constructed and it is C night time, the drivers have travelled on a route which was h not permitted for the transport of the goods. But, it is the ig mistake of the drivers and not the petitioners. It is further H claimed that the petitioners issued directions for transporting the vehicle with necessary instructions and provide copy of the route chart. The drivers might have lost the roads because of the newly constructed highways. The petitioners have nothing to do with the Identity Card of Lakhpati Malviya. Nor there is any offence under the provisions of Explosive Substances Act for possessing the ammonium nitrate because the consignment was on way to Solar Plant, Waidhan. It is also contended that offence under section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and under section 9B(1-b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 has not application in so far as the petitioners are concerned. The non-observance of Ammonium Nitrate in Rules, 2012 in not engaging security guard in the truck is also not in the domain of the petitioners. The petitioners have only provided the truck for transportation and not more than that.
6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/ State opposed the contentions and vehemently submitted that sh the transporter and transport providers are equally liable for e the offences.
ad
7. Pr On perusal of the record it is found that the petitioner No.1 is responsible for providing the vehicles for a transportation of the petrochemicals and the petitioner No.2 hy is the registered transporter. The petitioner No.1 books the ad transport vehicles for the purpose of transporting the vehicles for Balaji Traders, Durgapur, Dewas. The drivers-
M Rajesh Shukla and Santosh Dubey were driving the trucks in of the highway, without going towards Katni from Damoh and they might have entered into Narsinghpur. Otherwise also, rt the petitioner No.1 who provides service to petitioner No.2 ou for transportation. The petitioner No.1 would have never C thought that the petitioner No.2 or the drivers would take the h vehicles to a route which is not permitted for transporting the ig consignment. The Ammonium Nitrate was being transported, H and it was to be transported with proper security but no action was taken in this regard by the transporter. The petitioner No.2 while transporting the Ammonium Nitrate, ought to have engaged proper security guards. Without proper security guards if the consignment was sent, it was the responsibility of the petitioner No.2.
8. However, the petitioner No.1 is not concerned. It was also not the duty of the petitioner No.1-service provider to intimate the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of the places from where Ammonium Nitrate was being sent and the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of the place where the consignment was to be reached i.e. Dewas and Waidhan (Singrauli). This is observed that the petitioner No.2, is the transporter and was responsible for transporting the explosives.
9. In the light of above discussions, it is evident that if any infringement or violation of provisions has been done, it sh is done by the petitioner No.2 i.e. the transporter who was to e observe rules and regulations and not the petitioner No.1 ad who the provider of the transportation.
10. Pr Keeping in view the above circumstances, this a petition is allowed as far as petitioner No.1-Avinash Baheti is hy concerned. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the ad petition is dismissed.
M (Sushil Kumar Palo) Digitally signed by RAJESH T Judge of MAMTANI Date: 2018.02.27 02:02:06 -08'00' RM rt ou C h ig H