Madras High Court
P.Asokan vs The State Represented By on 13 February, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.25385 of 2017
Crl.M.P.Nos. 14160 & 14611 of 2017
P.Asokan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Jalakandapuram Police Station,
Omalur Taluk,
Salem District.
Crime No.81 of 2017 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
to call for the records relating to C.C.No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.II, Mettur, Salem District and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This Petition is filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.81 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 286 and 427 of IPC and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884. http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are two accused in this case, in which the petitioner is arraigned as A2. The petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petition is conducting fire work business from the year 2012 with valid permission and license from the competent authority. The petitioner has no overtact, even as per the case of the prosecution and as such the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance as against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to quash the entire proceeding.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the fire work shop and only because of his negligence, the fire crackers were kept without any safety measures. When A1 the sweeper, while she was sweeping the fire work shop, she had taken the basket from one place to another place and due to that friction, there was a fire got between the crackers. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
5. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the fire work shop running in the name and style of Sri Venkateswara Fire Works with due permission and license. A1 was appointed as sweeper in the fire work shop. On the date of occurrence, when A1 was sweeping the fire work shop, she had taken the basket from one place to another place, in which there was friction and the fire was got between the crackers. The prosecution filed a final report for the offences punishable under Sections 286 and 427 of IPC and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884 as against the two accused, in which the petitioner is arraigned as A2. Even according to the prosecution, no one was injured and there is no untoward incident took place.
6. It is relevant to extract the offence under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884 :-
"[9B Punishment for certain offences. — 1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules—
(a) .........
(b) possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both;
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 According to the case of the prosecution no ingredient attracts the offence as against the petitioner/A2. The petitioner is only a owner of the fire work shop and at the time of occurrence, he was not at all present in the place of occurrence. Therefore the charges under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, 1884 is not at all attracted as against the petitioner.
7. Insofar as the offence under Section 286 of IPC is concerned, it is relevant to rely the Section 286 of IPC as follows :-
"286. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance — Whoever does, with any explosive substance, 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 explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, 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. "
As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no negligence act committed by the petitioner and also no one was injured and no untoward incident happened in this occurrence. Therefore the petitioner need not to undergo for ordeal trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash http://www.judis.nic.in 5 the proceeding.
8. In fine, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the impunged proceeding in C.C.No.81 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.02.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rts To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Mettur, Salem District
2. The Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram Police Station, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts CRL.O.P.No.25385 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 14160 & 14611 of 2017 13.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in