Allaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Allaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2019

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                               1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

                  Crl.P. No. 6274/2016


BETWEEN :
--------------


1.     Allaiah
       S/o. Kuppaiah
       Aged about 39 years
       Working as Shift Manager

2.     Shripadhan
       S/o. late Guru Raghavendra
       Aged about 31 years
       Working as
       H.R. Assistant Manager

Both petitioners No. 1 and 2
Are working at
Sandhar Components Unit I
7A, KIADB Industrial Area
Attibele
Anekal Taluk - 5262107.             ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri. K. Diwakara, Adv.)
                              2




AND :
-------

1.    State of Karnataka
      By Attibele Police
      Bangalore
      Rep. by the
      State Public Prosecutor
      High Court of Karnataka
      Bangalore - 560 001.

2.    Sri. Kiran Kumar T.D.
      S/o. Doddaiah
      C/o. N. SHivanna
      Jayanna Layout
      Indiabele Raste, Attibele
      Anekal Taluk - 5262107.          ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.SPP for R-1
Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, Adv., for R-2)

                             ---
     This Crl.P. is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a
prayer to quash the entire criminal case in C.C. No.
96/2014 found at Annexure A and etc.

     This Crl.P. coming on for Admission this day, the
Court passed the following;

                        ORDER

Petitioner No. 1 was the Shift Manager and petitioner No. 2 was the HR Assistant Manager of Sandhar 3 Components Factory wherein respondent No. 2 sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of two fingers of his right hand while working as a Machine Operator for a man-power agency.

2. The allegations made in the charge sheet at the most would go to show that the alleged accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the occupier of the factory which is punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Petitioners herein were not responsible for the alleged act resulting in the aforesaid grievous injuries to respondent No. 2. As such, the provisions of Section 338 IPC are not attracted insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

3. In order to constitute an offence under Section 337 of IPC the accused should have caused the grievous hurt either rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. But, in the instant case, 4 the case of the prosecution is that the alleged accident had taken place on account of negligence of the employer or occupier in not providing necessary safeguards as required under the Factories Act. Vicarious liability cannot be imputed to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the prosecution is maintainable only against the occupier and not against the instant petitioners. As a result, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners being contrary to Section 338 of IPC, is liable to be quashed.

3. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Charge sheet in C.C. No. 96/2014 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District are quashed insofar as the petitioners, namely, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

LRS.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court