Delhi District Court
Vinod Goel vs The State on 28 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV: ROHINI (OUTER) : DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 8/12
In the matter of
Vinod Goel
S/o Sh. Dwarka Dass Goel
R/o 428, Deepali Enclave, Pitam Pura,
Delhi-110088.
......... Petitioner/Revisionist
Versus
The State
.....................Respondent
Order reserved on : 21.07.2012
Order pronounced on : 28.07.2012
ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 07.01.2012 passed by the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts Delhi arising out of the case FIR No. 818/07 registered at police station S.P. Badli under section 287/304A IPC whereby notice was ordered to be framed against the petitioner under section 287/304A IPC.
Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.1/9
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision are that on 08.12.2007 at about 9.30 AM at Badli Industrial Area Factory No. 89, PhaseII, Delhi, petitioner knowingly and negligently omitted to take such order with the machinery in his possession and under his care as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery and due to the said rash and negligent act, Chander Dev S/o Sh. Ram Ugrah who was labourer at his factory sustained injuries while operating machine at the factory. After completion of investigation a chargesheet for the offences 287/304A IPC was filed against the petitioner/accused in the Court. After hearing on notice Ld. Trial Court passed an order dated 07.01.2012 that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused u/s 287/304A IPC. It is against the said order the present revision petition has been filed.
3. After filing of the revision, notice of revision was given to the respondent/State and the trial court record was summoned.
4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and has been passed out of fanciful hypothesis. He further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court fell short in taking note of the settled law that the injuries, be that simple or grievous and even death when caused while working on machine are to be covered U/s 287 IPC., being a comprehensive section and encompassing all the contingencies emanating Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.2/9 from a mishappening. He further submitted that Ld. Trial Court lost sight of the fact that the offence under section 287 IPC is noncognizable and as such police is specifically forbidden to investigate the case without the prior permission of the court, as provided mandatory under section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to observe the error apparent that the police instead of seeking prior permission under section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C., per contra added section 304A IPC alongside section 287 IPC which is highly unwarranted. He further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court miserably failed and outrightly ignored the observations of Hon'ble Lahore High Court in Mohri Ram Vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 453, which squarely covers the case in hand. The Ld. Trial Court also lost sight of the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in S. Ajit Singh Vs. The State 1990 C.C. Cases 66 (H.C.), which specifically observed that the police is precluded to investigate noncognizable offence under section 287 IPC without the prior permission of the court under section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court ignored that the case in hand, if at all is evenly sheathed by the provisions of Section 287 of the IPC, which in itself is a comprehensive section thereby covering all the consequences springing from the alleged 'negligence'. He further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to examine that even the chargesheet under section 287 IPC can be filed within one year from the date of arrest, which is sine qua non under section 468 of the Cr.P.C. Whereas in the instance case, in order to cover up the delay the police has illegally and unlawfully clubbed Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.3/9 section 304A, purportedly to make that a 'cognizable offence'. The Ld. Trial Court ignored all the questions of law and passed the impugned order dated 07.01.2012 which is liable to be set aside.
5. Ld. APP respondent/State on the other hand supported the order of the trial court and submitted that it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which calls for any interference and further submitted that what grounds have been raised in revision have already been sufficiently and aptly dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court. As such revision petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused and Ld. APP for the respondent/state and have also carefully perused the entire record.
7. Section 287 IPC provides for negligent conduct with respect to machinery.
It reads as under:
287. Negligent conduct with respect to machinery.Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.4/9 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
8. Section 304A IPC provides for causing death by negligence.
It reads as under: 304A. Causing death by negligence. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
9. Undisputably, petitioner/accused was the owner of the steel factory no. 89 situated at Badli Industrial Area, PhaseII, Delhi. It is also not in dispute that Chander Dev (since deceased) was the labourer working at his factory on the rolling machine at the time of his death.
10. I have carefully perused and analysed the material on the record, the statement of the eye witness Suresh Gupta dated 08.12.2007 on the basis of which the FIR of the case was registered which is to the effect that he had been working in the Badli Industrial Area, Phase No.II, Factory No. 89 for the last two years and deceased Chander Dev was also working in this factory. The factory owner Sh. Vinod Goel was getting work done on 08.12.2007 from Chander Dev (since deceased) on rolling machine and when he (Chander Dev) was working on the rolling machine at about 9.30 AM and Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.5/9 had put the steel plates in the machine, the steel sheet/plate after breaking down into pieces in the rolling machine flew in the air and the flying chips hit his left hand and the left stomach portion and caused injuries. The deceased was also not having any commercial training. On being shifted to the hospital Chander Dev was declared dead. The death of Chander Dev has occurred due to the nonproviding of the safe guard on the rolling machine and by getting work on it, by the factory owner Vinod Goel.
The said statement of eye witness Suresh Gupta prima facie finds corroborations from the factory inspection report dated 22.01.2008 of Sh. S. Pandia Rajan, Inspector of Factories, Delhi, who had inspected the factory.
The relevant part of the factory inspection report dated 22.01.2008 reads as under: xxxxxx xxxxxxx With reference to your letter No. Nil dated 10.12.07 the aforesaid subject matter, I am to inform you that the premises of M/s. GiG Auto Industries, located at address Plot No. 89, PhaseII, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi42 was inspected by the undersigned on 16.01.08 at 3.45 PM for investigation under the Factories Act, 1948. The factory was engaged in manufacturing of Rerolling of Stainless Steel Sheets with the aid of power operated machinery. During the course of inspection it was reported that the worker Sh. Chander Dev was fatally Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.6/9 injured on his stomach & left hand while working on "Steel Rerolling Machine" on 08.12.07 at about 9.30 AM, due to hitting by a flying chip of metal piece which got ejected from the rerolling machine while working on the said machine. The "Steel Rerolling Machine" involved in the aforesaid accident of worker was found to be having no safe guard/arrangements, required for protection of workers against such type of accidents.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx As per the postmortem report of deceased Chander Dev, Dr. Kulbhushan Goel, Chief Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital, Delhi has opined that all injuries are antemortem in nature, caused by sharp cutting object and are consistent with caused by steel strip found inside body when it enters with very fast speed. Cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to intestinal and mesentric injuries.
From above it is clearly indicated there was omission to take necessary steps for maintenance of machinery by the petitioner/accused, sufficient to guard against any probable danger, which amounts to negligent act and has resulted in the death of the deceased Chander Dev and the death so occurred is the proximate cause of such omission, therefore, there is proximate nexus between the omission on the part of petitioner/accused for Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.7/9 nonmaintenance of machinery by not providing safe guard/arrangements to it and of the death of the deceased. The said acts of the petitioner/accused are squarely covered within the provisions of offences u/s 287/304A IPC.
11. In such scenario on the strength of the material on the record the Ld. Trial court has rightly held that a prima facie case u/s 287/304A IPC is made out against the accused.
12. Resultantly, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in order dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Ld. trial court which calls for any interference. Accordingly, the order dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Ld. trial court is confirmed.
13. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner/accused and reported as 1). Mohri Ram Vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 453, 2). S. Ajeet Singh Vs. The State 1990 CC Cases 66 (HC) which pertain to the scope of Section 287/304A IPC And for investigation in respect of noncognizable offence cannot be carried out without the permission of the Magistrate u/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C, respectively are concerned, are wholly distinguishable. in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the instant case and do not render any assistance to the appellant/accused. In a case titled Sunil Kumar Vs. State 181 (2011) DLT 528 (DB) it was held that "No case can Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.8/9 strictly be a precedent in a criminal matter for the reason no two criminal trials would unfold the same story and the same evidence. Thus, a decision cited pertaining to the destination reached at a particular criminal voyage has to be carefully applied, on a principle of law, in a subsequent voyage".
14. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 07.01.2012 passed by Ld. Trial Court is upheld. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.
A copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner/accused free of costs.
Trial Court record alongwith a copy of this order be sent back. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) on the 28 Day of month of July, 2012 Addl. Sessions Judge - IV (Outer).
th Rohini, Delhi.
Vinod Goel Vs. State, CR No. 8/12 Page no.9/9