Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with Section 328 of the IPC in case of Joseph Kurian Philip Jose (supra). The criminal appeals placed before Cr.WP.1027.2015+.doc the Apex Court arose out of a phase of sporadic incidents referred to as "Punalur Liquor Tragedy" where certain persons died and others received injuries due to consumption of poisonous adulterated arrack, ethyl alcohol adulterated with methyl alcohol. Cases under Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC and Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act were registered. On recording a finding of guilt against A-1 and A-4, the Sessions Court imposed sentence. The remaining accused were found guilty of offences punishable under the Abkari Act and were imposed nominal sentences of fine only. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of A-1 and conviction of A-4 came to be set aside and he was convicted under Section 109 for abetting the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC. In the backdrop of these facts, the Apex Court was called upon to decide the applicability of Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC against the said Accused. Adulteration of liquor is prohibited under Section 57 of the Abkari Act to a licensed vendor or manufacturer. After making a reference to the provisions of Section 328 of the IPC, the Apex Court observed thus:

The act of the accused in adulterating liquor per se, as the law then stood sans amendments, would not attract the provision of Section 328 of I.P.C. unless there is positive evidence that A-1 administered the poisoned liquor directly or by Sreedharan, deceased indirectly caused it to be taken by Sreedharan indirectly with the necessary intent and mens rea. This view of the learned Trial Judge as confirmed by the High Court does not appear to us to be sound in the back drop of the death actually occurring. But since it has taken that view it cannot stop short of hurt and so must slip down to a fall downright. Important links in the prosecution case on this particular remain otherwise missing. A-1 would thus have to be acquitted of the charge under Section 328 IPC in carrying out the findings of the High Court to their logical end."

21. Section 328 of the IPC finds place in Chapter XVI under caption "Causing hurt by means of poison, etc". The offence under Section 328 IPC is cognizable, non- bailable and non- compoundable. We can analyse the said section by dissecting it into two parts, first part viz.

"whoever administers to" and second part "or causes to be taken by any person". The first part uses the terminology 'Administers to'. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term 'Administer' to mean to control the operation or arrangement of something and its colloquial meaning is to cause someone to receive something. The Collins Dictionary defines it to mean 'to direct or control or to put into execution; dispense'. The first part of Section 328 of IPC therefore contemplates a direct involvement of a person to be brought within the purview of Section 328 of the IPC and it covers a situation of administration of one of the substance mentioned, to another. The second part of the section Cr.WP.1027.2015+.doc which uses the phraseology 'cause to be taken' employs an indirect method where a person causes one of the substance to be taken by another person. This 'causing' is suggestive of involvement of a third person and, therefore, employs an indirect method. The word 'causes' involves some degree of dominance or, control or some express or positive mandate and necessarily induces an element of some active operation aimed at a result. The word 'cause' which denotes to make something happen is a verb whereas the word 'causing' is present participle of the word 'cause'.

K. Proceedings of Sessions Case No. 14 of 2015 pending before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur is hereby quashed only in respect of offence under Section 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 qua the applicant in Criminal Application No. 4395 of 2015.

L. Charge-sheet bearing No. 06 of 2014 arising out of the FIR vide Cr. No. B-1/14 dated 09.01.2014 registered with Police Station Railway, Nanded (Dist. Railway Nagpur) is hereby quashed only in respect of offence under Section 328 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 qua the applicant in Criminal Application No. 4517 of 2015. M. Respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed against the Petitioners/Applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 26 and 30 of the Food Safety and Standards Cr.WP.1027.2015+.doc Act, 2006.