Telangana High Court
Management Of South Glass Company vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 September, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10599 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.502 of 2024 of Shadnagar Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 338, 337, 336 and 287 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.').
2. The facts of the case are that on 28.06.2024 the complainant lodged a report before the police stating that he is working as Naib Tahsildar of Farooqnagar from 07.11.2022. On 28.06.2024 at about 1630 hours he received an information that an explosion took place in South Glass factory, and the same was informed to his higher officials, thereafter rushed to the spot at about 1700 hours and upon enquiry it was revealed that one machinery known as Autoclave blasted due to which three persons died on the spot who were working on that machinery, 12 workers got injured out of them two persons died and the other ten persons are undergoing treatment. As such requested to take necessary action. Basing on the said 2 complaint the police originally registered the case for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338, 337, 336 and 287 of I.P.C. Later police filed memo for alteration of sections stating that during investigation they examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, was issued to A.1 to A.7. That the police received report from the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories stating that Autoclave was not tested by competent person approved by Director of Factories, Telangana to ensure its structural strength. The Autoclave was not tested Hydro statically by the Directors of Factories once in a year to ensure its structural strength, not ensured the functioning of safety relief valve to release excess pressure above predetermined safe limit in the Autoclave, not provided automatic cut off valve from Air receive to Autoclave to ensure cut off the pressure below predetermined safe limits in the Autoclave, Workers not trained adequately to ensure safe operation of Autoclave, not provided adequate supervision over the Autoclave workers to prevent built up of excessive pressure in Autoclave. That their investigation revealed that the deceased D.1 to D.5 along with others were working in South Glass factory unit and the said Autoclave was blasted due to which five workers succumbed to injuries, ten persons sustained 3 severe injuries. That A.1 to A.5 who are the Directors/Management of South Glass Factory and A.6 and A.7 did not take precautionary measures and as per the information given by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, the section of law has to be altered from Section 304-A to 304 Part-II of I.P.C. to the existing sections i.e., 304-A, 338, 337, 336 and 287 of I.P.C. and added Section 92 of the Factories Act. Aggrieved by the said alteration of Sections, the present criminal petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri T.Natraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying of a commendable range of Architectural glass and also running a factory in Shadnagar which is registered under the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'Act 1948'). The present proceedings arise out of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2. Originally complaint was filed vide F.I.R.No.502 of 2024 for the offences punishable under section 304-A, 338, 337, 336 and 287, later the police filed alteration 4 memo. He further submitted that the petitioner company is in compliance of statutory norms wherein the structural strength of the Autoclave machinery was regularly checked by third party approved in the list of inspectors in factories. Further, training sessions have been given to all the operators and supervisors and the police without conducting preliminary investigation and without enquiry into the tenability of allegations made in the complaint, solely basing on the remarks of certain authorities, registered the F.I.R, and subsequently, altered the same. Even the averments in the complaint are taken into consideration, without admitting, the same does not per se establish or impart any culpability on the part of petitioner to invoke the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. Except vaguely alleging that certain safety norms are not taken resulting in an unfortunate explosion, the impugned complaint fails to give any factual basis substantiating initiation of prosecution against the petitioner. The criminal liability cannot be fastened against an accused merely on account of an incident. Absence of any specific overt acts against the petitioner herein satisfying the required ingredients of the offence, the prosecution cannot be sought to set into motion against the petitioner. A perusal of section 304 Part-II of I.P.C refers to culpable homicide not 5 amounting to murder, wherein sine qua non for invocation of same is that the alleged act is done with the knowledge that is likely to cause the death and the same is not made out against the petitioner herein either from the averments in the complaint or the alteration memo proceedings.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that invocation of Section 92 of the Factories Act is barred under law. Section 105 of the Act 1948, mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with previous sanction in writing of, an inspector. However, in the present case, the impugned proceedings arise out of a complaint lodged by Tahsildar who is not the inspector as notified under the Act 1948. As such, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued. When there is express legal bar engraved in any of the provisions of the Code or concerned Act, continuation of proceedings shall be deemed to be abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed. Further, Section 105 of the Act 1948, impliedly ousts the jurisdiction of police to register F.I.R, in respect of contraventions of the Factories. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the F.I.R, against the petitioner.
6
6. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and prayed the Court to dismiss this petition.
7. Having regard to the submissions made and the material placed on record, the contention of petitioner is that they have taken safety measures and regular check is done regarding the structural strength of the Autoclave machinery and merely basing on the report of inspector of Factories, section alteration memo is filed baselessly. There is a separate Act and there are penal provisions in the Act 1948 itself and there are no averments to invoke the offence punishable under I.P.C, except alleging that certain safety norms are not followed. Admittedly, it is an accident and there is no intention to cause injuries to any of the deceased or injured by the petitioner. Further, Section 92 of the Act 1948, is not maintainable as there is bar under the Act 1948. A complaint is maintainable only when it is filed by the inspector in writing with the previous sanction.
8. After going through the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the incident occurred on 28.06.2024. The investigating agency obtained report from Chief Inspector of Factories, wherein he clearly stated that the Autoclave was not tested by the competent person approved by 7 Director of Factories or it is not tested by a competent person once in a year and it was not tested hydro statically by competent person approved by the Director of Factories and not ensured the functioning of safety relief valve to release excess pressure, not provided automatic cut off valve from air receive to Autoclave to ensure cut off the pressure below predetermined safe limits in the Autoclave, the workers are not trained properly to ensure safe operation of Autoclave and not provided adequate supervision over the Autoclave workers to prevent built up of excessive pressure in Autoclave, which shows that petitioner herein has not taken precautionary measures which have to be taken for safety of workers which is in their knowledge. If the precautionary measures are not taken, there is every possibility of occurrence of accidents which leads to danger to the workers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C, is sufficient to constitute the offence. When it is a factory in which large number of workers are working at the cost of their lives, petitioner has to take care all safety measures which is not done by the petitioner. Further the case is at the stage of investigation and evidence has to be collected with regard to the incident. As such, at this stage, there are no 8 merits in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is liable to be rejected.
9. Further, with regard to invocation of Section 92 of the Act 1948, there is bar under Section 109 of the Act 1948, wherein, the inspector has to file complaint before the concerned authority with previous sanction. As such, the said section cannot be invoked in this case and it has to be deleted.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the police are directed to delete Section 92 of the Act 1948, against the petitioner and proceed further for the remaining offences alleged against the petitioner. However, petitioner is at liberty to challenge the charge sheet if there are any valid grounds.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :18.09.2024 Rds