Karnataka High Court
Rana Ajay Kumar Singh vs State Of Karnataka, on 18 February, 2016
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100194/2015
BETWEEN
1. MR.RANA AJAY KUMAR SINGH,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O RIDDI SIDDI FACTORY,
FALLs ROAD, GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. KRANTIK PRASUL KUMAR DAS,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O RIDDI SIDDI FACTORY,
FALLS ROAD, GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.M.J.PEERJADE, ADV. FOR SRI.N.M.HANSI, ADV. )
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
GOKAK, REP.BY BY SP BELGAUM,
(PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.)
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.174/2008 BEFORE THE
PRL. JMFC COURT, GOKAK FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 285, 286, 287, 337, 338, 304-A R/W 34 OF
IPC. BE QUASHED.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.174/2008 on the file of the JMFC, Gokak have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the same relying upon the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.9104/2009 with connected petitions which are disposed of by judgment dated 22.01.2010 and also by relying upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Binod Kumar Das and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2008(1) JCR 601 Jhr.
2. The brief facts leading to this petition are as under:
Petitioners herein who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.174/2008 are working as Production Manager and Micro Biologist in M/s Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Boils at Gokak, Belgaum District. The said persons are in occupation of the said industry as defined under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948. The records would disclose that on 3 04.05.2007 at about 8.30.p.m., there was an explosion in MSP division resulting in sporadic fire causing death of 16 workers engaged in 'C' drier section and also grievous injuries to other persons by taking the total of injuries and death to the tune of 35. In that behalf, a complaint was filed by the Assistant Director of Factories under Section 92 of the Factories Act and also Rule 88B(5), Rule 88B(12), Rule 88G(k), Rule 6(b) and Section 45(4), Rule 92(1), Rule 92(5) and Rule 137 of Karnataka Factory Rules 1969.
3. Based on that proceedings, C.C.No.1301 of 2007 was registered against the Manager and Occupier of the factory who are the petitioners herein. In the said proceedings, it is stated that they have pleaded guilty of the offence before the learned Magistrate on 07/02/2013. Based on which the complaint was closed imposing fine of Rs.1,87,500/- against the Manager and Occupier of the factory who are petitioners herein. It is seen that in the meanwhile, on the basis of a complaint which is made by 4 one Basavaraj Balappa Nayak, a resident of Konnur, the Gokak town Police registered a complaint in Crime No.89 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 285, 286, 287, 337, 38, 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet is filed on 07/02/2008 which is subsequently registered as C.C.No.174 of 2008 for the very same offences and presently pending consideration before the Court of JMFC, Gokak. The petitioners, who are accused 1 and 2 in the said proceedings, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the same on the ground that they have already pleaded guilty in the proceedings which was initiated in C.C.No.1301 of 2007 and suffered an order of conviction and sentence on 07/02/2013 wherein they have paid fine of Rs.1,87,500/-. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.174 of 2008 would amount to subjecting them to double jeopardy i.e., subjecting them to undergo punishment for the same offence for second time.
5
4. This matter is taken up for consideration in the presence of learned counsel Sri. M. J. Peerjade appearing for the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.174 of 2008 on the file of the JMFC, Gokak, and learned Government Pleader for the prosecution. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners also tried to substantiate that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the proceedings in C.C.No.1301/ of 2007 is only with reference to the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act and that the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2008 being in respect of the offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, therefore pursuing this proceedings would not amount to double jeopardy, even then the present petition cannot be continued against them for the reason that there is no mens rea on the part of petitioners 1 and 2 who are accused 1 and 2 in the said proceedings and they have no role to play in the said accident. He would try to explain the said offence from the point of complaint which is registered with the police on Crime No.89 of 2007 it would show that in "C" drier section 6 of Riddi Siddi Gluco Boils Limited, an employee who is also victim of the accident lighted a beedi in a place where he was prohibited to use any igniting substance and thereby caused fire accident without taking proper care which he was required to.
5. In the said fire accident, about 35 person who were working in that section at the relevant point suffered severe burn injuries resulting in death of about 16 persons and severe burn injuries to remaining other employees. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would try to substantiate that even assuming that the offences under which they are charged in C.C.No.174 of 2008 is looked into, they have no role in committing the said offence and he would try to substantiate that in the absence of any animus of committing the said crime and mens rea not being established by directly involving negligence on the part of the petitioners herein, the prosecution which is launched against them on the ground that statutorily they are 7 referred to as Manager and Occupier of the factory under the Factories Act cannot be pursued.
6. The counsel for petitioners rely upon the judgment rendered in the matter of AJIT KULKARNI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Crl.P.No.9104 of 2009 disposed of on 22nd January 2010 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it is held that, the offence alleged being under the Factories Act which is special law, once they are prosecuted for the offence under the said Act, they cannot be prosecuted again for the same incident under the provisions of the IPC regarding the same offence. However, learned Government Pleader Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, would try to distinguish the same by relying upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the matter of EJAJ AHMAD vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER in Cr.M.P.No.911 of 2007 disposed of by judgment dated 03/09/2009 with reference to paragraphs 9 to 11 wherein the learned Judge of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi has held that 8 apprehension of the petitioners that they are prosecuted for the same offence twice is misconceived.
7. He would also try to draw the attention of this Court by referring to Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. highlited in the said judgment would provide that if a person convicted or acquitted for the same offence, he cannot be tried for the same offence. In the said judgment it is stated that as facts would indicate that the accused was neither acquitted nor convicted on merits. On the contrary, he had pleaded guilty and had paid the fine. Therefore the same cannot be taken as disposal of the matter on merits to accept the same as either conviction or acquittal. By drawing reference particularly to the said judgment to the case on hand he would to substantiate that in the instant case also what was done in the C.C.No.1301 of 2007 on the file of the JMFC, Gokak, is accused have accepted the offence punishable under the Factories Act for which the maximum punishment imposed is for two years or with fine or with both. In that view of the matter continuation 9 of prosecution under the provisions of Indian Penal Code cannot be treated as double jeopardy.
8. After giving careful consideration to the judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader and also the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the facts, this court is of the opinion that two criminal cases which are launched against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.1301 of 2007 and 174 of 2008 on the file of the JMFC, Gokak, is in respect of the same incident. It is needless to say that in C.C.No.1301 of 2006 for the offence under Factories Act, in the same incident they pleaded guilty for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Whereas the provisions of law invoked in the instant case are with reference to offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. When the said offences which are under Sections 285, 286, 287 and 228 deal with negligent conduct with reference to combustible matter exposing substances and also in respect of running the machinery. So far as offence 10 under Section 337 and 338 is with reference to causing hurt and as well as grievous hurt by act of endangering life or personal safety of others. So far Section 304A is concerned, causing death by rash negligent act.
9. None of these offences can be attributable to the petitioners inasmuch as there is no role which could be attributed to them in causing fire accident in the factory of M/s. Riddi Siddi on 04/05/2007. As could be seen from the complaint itself, the fire accident has taken place due to negligence on the part of one of the victims in the said accident i.e., one of the victim lighted beedi without realizing its consequences in the enclosed area namely "C" drier section where combustible gas and other substances were present. Further it is seen that there is no accusation of lacuna in taking primary precaution to ensure arrest of spread of fire on behalf of the petitioners who are Manager and Occupier of the factory. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that none of the act which has caused death and injuries to 35 persons who were working in the instant 11 time are attributable to the petitioners either by act of animus or mental status of mens rea in causing the said accident. Therefore prosecuting them for the said offence is without any purpose thereby causing them undue hardship to undergo the prosecution merely for the reason that they were statutorily responsible officers for managing the said factory at the relevant point of time. With such observation, the petition filed by accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.174 of 2008 on the file of the JMFC, Gokak, is hereby allowed and the prosecution launched against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/kmv/-