Delhi District Court
Puneet Aggarwal vs State on 26 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR NO. DLSH01-000726-2024
CR. REV NO. 30/2024
PUNEET AGGARWAL & ANR.
VS.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
26.11.2024
Present:- Sh. D K Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for Revisionists
along with Revisionist No. 1 Puneet Aggarwal.
Revisionist no. 2 Vineet Aggarwal appeared through
VC.
Sh. Sobit, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist that the present revision petition has been filed against the order of Ld. MM, Shahdara dated 03.11.2023 in FIR No. 205/2018, PS GTB Enclave, u/s 304A/34 IPC vide which notice was framed against the revisionists/petitioners u/s 304A/34 IPC.
2. It is further argued that impugned order dated 03.11.2023 is erroneous in law and fact and Ld. Trial Court has caused a great injustice to the revisionists while passing the order in haste as it did not consider the material on record/charge-sheet or the documentary proof or evidence in respect of the allegations, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The examination of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial Court has passed it with pre-determined mind and did not apply judicial mind and the order is based on surmises and conjectures.
3. It is further submitted that as per the allegations of the prosecution, the alleged incident took place in the factory, but Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 1 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:50:45 +0530 from the bare perusal of the evidence on record qua the revisionists, no prima facie case u/s 304-A/34 IPC is made out against the revisionists and no material is available to frame the notice against them and Ld. Trial Court proceeded with a close mind in a mechanical manner and failed to exercise its jurisdiction and weigh the material on record.
4. The Ld. MM has acted on the presumption by ignoring the material on record i.e. the statements of the prosecution witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the IO, who have not deposed at all against the revisionists and police had filed the charge-sheet mechanically and even the report of Factory Inspector does not suggest any negligence on the part of the revisionists, who had always taken all the precautions in their factory and the incident with the deceased was just an accident and even the revisionists were not present at that time and the fan in which her chunni got entangled was a very small fan and that too was covered and the order passed by Ld. MM was a non speaking order and there is no proof of any negligence on the part of the revisionists in the death of deceased, which was an unfortunate accident and even the eye witnesses present there have not deposed against the revisionists and there is no evidence on record that revisionists had forced the deceased to work at a factory without providing safety equipment and order of framing of notice is bad in law.
5. It is also submitted that the present revision is maintainable even against the order of framing of notice and this Court has power to discharge the revisionists or pass any other appropriate order in favour of revisionists and Ld. Counsel for Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 2 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:50:51 +0530 the revisionists has relied upon following judgments:
(i) Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. Vs. Amit Sibal & Anr. 2014 [1] JCC 229,
(ii) Bal Ram Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr 2015 [3] JCC 1695.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the present revision is not maintainable against the framing of notice u/s 304A/34 IPC as it is a summons trial case and there is no provision of discharge in such cases and there is a report of Factory Inspector wherein he has mentioned that the revisionists were negligent and did not provide the adequate safety material to the deceased and cause of death as per PMR is respiratory lung infection subsequent to antemortem injury on neck produced by blunt force impact. Further, at the time of framing of notice, only the prima facie case is to be seen and the Court is not concerned with the conviction or acquittal and it is not disputed that deceased was not working in the factory of the revisionists and appreciation of evidence of witnesses is a matter of trial and the order of framing of notice against the revisionists is just and proper and it was passed after considering the entire material on record.
7. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
8. The notice was framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/s 304A/34 IPC by the Ld. MM vide order dated 03.11.2023 regarding the death of deceased Anuradha, who was working in the factory of accused persons.
Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 3 of 13Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:50:57 +0530
9. The said order has been assailed by the accused persons in this revision. Ld. APP has objected to the maintainability of revision on the ground of no provision of discharge, but Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon the judgments in Arvind Kejriwal (Supra) and Bal Ram (Supra).
Section 251 Cr.P.C. Substance of accusation to be stated.- When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.
Section 258 Cr.P.C. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.- In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounces a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.
10. In Arvind Kejriwal (Supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the Magistrate has to frame the notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that prima facie case is made out against the accused, but in the event of not finding a prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate shall discharge/drop the proceedings against the accused and also held that since there is no express provision or prohibition in this Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 4 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:51:03 +0530 regard in Cr.P.C., the directions were issued by Hon'ble High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. r/w 483 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution to secure the ends of justice and to avoid needless multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessarily delay in trial.
11. It is also held that power of Ld. Trial Court to discharge the accused at the stage of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. is based not only on sound logic, but also on fundamental principles of justice as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot be put to face trial. Also, if the Trial Court has to frame notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. where no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the hearing at the stage of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. would be a mere farce and would result in failure of justice and denial of remedy of discharge of accused in summons cases at the time of notice is clearly discriminatory. It is also held that if no case is made out, the Magistrate can drop the proceedings u/s 258 Cr.P.C. which does not speak of discharge. It is also held that order of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. substantially affects the rights of an accused - The non- availability of the remedy of discharge to the accused at the stage of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. is therefore discriminatory and arbitrary, considering that the said remedy is available to the accused in warrant cases as well as summons cases based on police reports.
In this regard, judgment of S.K. Bhalla Vs. State 180 (2011) DLT 219 is also relied upon.
12. In Bhushan Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 5 SCC 424, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is the bounden duty of the Trial Court in Section 251 Cr.P.C. to satisfy whether offence against the accused is made out or not and to discharge the accused if no case is made out against him.
Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 5 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:51:09 +0530
13. In Raujeev Taneja Vs. NCT of Delhi Crl. MC No. 4733/2013, decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that at the stage of framing of notice, the Trial Court has to pass an speaking order after hearing the accused and if the Trial Court proceeds to drop the proceedings qua the accused , then the judgment of Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not stand in the way of Trial Court to do so.
In Arvind Kejriwal (Supra) it was also held that if the Trial Court chooses to frame notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy as available in the law.
14. In Bal Ram (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court is not expected to function like a Post Office and to mechanically frame the notice, but is rather, bound by law to apply its mind to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not.
15. Considering the above judgments and their ratio, the Magistrate has power to discharge the accused or drop the proceedings against him, if no material is found and in either of such cases the remedy would be the revision before the Sessions Court and in the opinion of court certainly the order of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. is also revisable and as such the present revision is maintainable.
16. As per the case of prosecution, DD No. 23B was registered on 20.06.2018 after a PCR call was received at PS GTB Enclave regarding the death of a lady Anuradha, w/o Sh. Ratan Mishra, R/o C-3/268, Nand Nagri, Delhi, aged about 38 years from ESI Hospital, Jhilmil, Shahdara, Delhi. As per her MLC, there was alleged history of Trauma over neck cloth Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 6 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:51:15 around over neck by fan while working in a factory on 10.06.2018 and on 20.06.2018 patient/injured expired/collapsed and mother of deceased reported the matter on 20.06.2018 and FIR No. 205/2018, u/s 201/419/304A was registered at PS GTB Enclave.
17. Ld. MM has passed an order dated 03.11.2023 thereby framing the notice u/s 304A/34 IPC, but no reasons have been assigned for framing the notice and only perusal of the documents have been mentioned and that prima facie Section 304A/34 IPC is made out against the accused persons.
In Radesh Singh and Ors. v. State and Anr. Reported as 2011 SCC Online Del 901, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when no evidence was found by the police and the Magistrate considered that there was sufficient evidence, then Magistrate must pass a speaking order for summoning such offenders, against whom in the opinion of the police there was no evidence.
18. As per the charge-sheet filed by the police, the death of deceased Anuradha was caused by her own chunni, which was entangled in the fan and the subsequent injury caused. As per PMR, the cause of death was respiratory lung infection subsequent to antemortem injury on neck produced by blunt force impact.
19. The IO recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and PW Khem Singh, who was the supervisor of the factory stated that on 10.06.2018, Anuradha was packing the items and sitting in front of table fan and suddenly her chunni got entangled in the said fan and she sustained injury and was taken to ESI Hospital with co-workers Sulochana and Pramod Kumar Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 7 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2024.11.26 17:51:22 +0530 and she expired on 20.06.2018. This witness has not given any statement against the accused persons. Another PW Virender has also stated the same facts that Anuradha's chunni got entangled in the fan while packing and she was taken to said hospital and even this witness has not stated anything against the accused persons. Another PW Sulochana, who was the co-worker, stated that on 10.06.2018 at about 5 PM, she along with deceased Anuradha was packing by sitting in front of table fan and suddenly her chunni was entangled and she sustained some injury and became unconscious, but after sometime she stood up ( thodi der me khadi ho gai), which shows that the victim did not die at the spot and became conscious after a while. PW Shailender, who was brother of deceased Anuradha stated that due to family dispute she came to Delhi and he received a call on 10.06.2018 that she was working in a factory at Gali No. 6, Friends Colony and while working her chunni got entangled in a table fan and she sustained injury on her neck and he has categorically stated that the accused persons, who are the owners of the factory, cannot be blamed for that. Similar statement was made by PW Anita, who was the mother of deceased and she also stated that there was no fault of the accused persons in the said incident.
20. Thus, it is apparent from the statements of these prosecution witnesses, who have to prove the case of prosecution during trial, that they have not made any statement about the negligence of the accused persons and out of them two are the family members and others are the persons, who were working with the deceased on the day of incident and had witnessed the said incident and despite that they have not spoken about any iota Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 8 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:51:27 +0530 of negligence on part of the accused persons.
21. Ld. Trial Court has only relied upon the report of Factory Inspector dated 04.09.2018 addressed to SHO, GTB Enclave. The said report itself states that on inspection of table fan, in which the chunni of deceased Anuradha got entangled, was found guarded with safety cover and there is nothing incriminating regarding the negligence against accused persons qua said table fan.
22. The only factor relied upon by Ld. Trial Court is that deceased was allowed to work without tight fitting clothing at work place and there was lack of supervision. As regards this allegation, there are no guidelines stated in the said report or in the police charge-sheet that the accused persons were bound to follow or that the loose fitting cloths were not allowed in the factory premises for a worker, whose job was only the packaging of articles, which were not combustible or dangerous in nature or that non compliance of any such guideline, if any would amount to negligence on part of accused persons and even the supervisor is not made an accused, if there is any supervisory lapse and it is not disputed that accused persons/revisionists were not present at the place of incident when it occurred. The table fan was a very small fan and nobody could apprehend that a person can sustain injury if the chunni got entangled in it. The accused would have been liable, if the said table fan would not have been guarded. None of the prosecution witnesses has complained that they were not allowed to wear the particular clothing or directed to wear particular clothing while packaging. The said fan was not such a fan like exhaust, which could pull a person towards itself and Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 9 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2024.11.26 17:51:33 +0530 there is broad possibility that the victim would have got near the said fan and by accident, the part of her chunni got inside the fan from the cover and entangled in it leading to injury.
23. Rash and negligent act.- In the ancient decision of Empress V. Idu Beg [ILR 3 All 776], the topic was dealt with in the following language: "Criminal rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably cause. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper case and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally, or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was imperative duty of accused person to have 'adopted'.
Negligence in common parlance means and implies "failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable and prudent person". It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of the safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which follow from his act.
Cause and effect - must be direct.- In order to attract the section, death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause without the intervention of another act of negligence. It must be the causa Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 10 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2024.11.26 17:51:39 +0530 causans, it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non. Thus where death is not the direct result of rash or negligent act on the part of the accused and was not a proximate and sufficient cause without the intervention of another act of negligence, the accused must be acquitted of the charge u/s 304A
- Kurban Rangawalla v. State AIR 1965 SC 1616: (1966) 1 SCJ 160; Suleman v. State AIR 1968 SC 829: (1968) 2 SCR 515:
1968 Cr LJ 1013; Ambalal v. State AIR 1972 SC 1150: 1972 Cr LJ 727: Keshab v State (1996) 6 SCC 129.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, VI (2010) SLT 753=(2010) 9 SCC 368 has considered the powers of Courts in respect of the framing of charge and discharge and the fact that a prima facie case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant principles as enunciated in the said decision read as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie cases would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the material placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 11 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:51:45 +0530 the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Section 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them give rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."
25. Since in view of the above cited judgments, the Magistrate has power to discharge the accused in a summons trial case, the same principles of charge as aforesaid, will apply to the present case and it has become settled law that if two views are possible and one of them give rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 12 of 13 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:51:51 +0530 empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. However, in the present case, even there is no evidence of mere suspicion to proceed case against the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
26. Considering the above, the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by Ld. MM-01, Shahdara, is set aside and accused Puneet Aggarwal and Vineet Aggarwal are discharged for the offence u/s 304A/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish the bonds u/s 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each before the Ld. Trial Court on 28.11.2024.
The Criminal Revision Petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
TCR along with copy of this order be sent to the concerned Ld. Trial Court.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally signed by KUMAR compliance. KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2024.11.26 17:51:57 +0530 (Kumar Rajat) ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi 26.11.2024 Puneet Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi Cr Rev No. 62/2022 Page 13 of 13