SHAILENDRA K JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal petition f iled under section 482 of Cr.P.C. , seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.430/2018, on the fi le of Prl . Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur, for the offence under section 7A of Factories Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) punishable under section 92 of the Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner No.1 is designated as occupier of the factory under the Act, 1948, at the time of accident and petitioner No.2 is the factory manager under the Act, in the factory by name Grasim Industries Limited, Grasilene Division, Kumarapatnam, tq: Ranebennur, Dist: Haveri . The said company is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered off ice at Nagda, Madhya Pradesh. The company is engaged in manufacturing of reyon grade pulp and viscose staple f iber, besides producing all ied by-product such as sodium sulphate, etc., . The Grasim Industries is sell ing sodium sulphate to various industrial customers. One of such industrial customer M/s.Bhagavathi Chemicals situated at Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, placed order for purchase of sodium sulphate from the petitioners above mentioned plant. Accordingly M/s.Bhagavathi Chemicals was required to l ift the sodium sul fate purchased by it from the petitioners factory at their own cost. Accordingly M/s.Bhagavathi Chemicals engaged M/s.Parmar Roadl ines, P.B.Road, Harihar, as their authorized transporter for carrying the said consignment of sodium sulphate from Grasim Industries Limited. It was the sole responsibi lity of purchaser M/s.Bhagavathi Chemicals to make an arrangement for loading of material in the truck engaged by it from the sodium sul fate godown of the petitioners. Accordingly M/s.Bhagavathi Chemicals engaged truck No.AP-07/TE-2939 through its authorized transporter M/s.Parmar Roadlines, on 13.8.2018, which was being driven by its driver one Sri K.Ramulu accompanied by lorry cleaner deceased Ramaswamy, entered the factory premises for loading of the material . At the time of entry in the factory, a gate pass was issued at the security post, mentioning the name of driver and cleaner. They were also provided with personal safety protection equipments and they were instructed about the safety procedure of the factory. After loading, the truck moved out of the area and took left turn to go towards tarpaulin covering area. At the same time, lorry cleaner Ramaswamy recklessly and negligently ran and tried to enter the moving truck by holding the handle on the left side and putting one leg on the foot rest whi le the truck was in motion. While doing this wil l ful unsafe act, lorry cleaner sl ipped and went under the moving truck. During this unsafe act, lorry driver also fai led to stop. Sri Vikram Kumar, SIS Security Staf f of the company, who was directing the vehicles and others in the sodium sulphate area, started blowing whistle when he saw the cleaner Ramaswamy trying to cl imb the moving vehicle. Victim was immediately rushed to Civi l Hospital for medical help in company ambulance along with doctors. On reaching the hospital , the doctors declared him dead.

(3.) The petitioners have stated that accident no doubt took place due to sheer negligent unsafe act of both driver and cleaner. Due to the negligent act of the driver, the pol ice have f iled criminal case against him before the Addl. Civil Judge and II Addl . JMFC, Ranebennur, for the of fence punishable under section 304-A of IPC in C.C.No.435/2018. Petitioner No.2 informed the respondent about the accident and the respondent visited the factory and after inspection, issued a show cause notice dated 10.10.2018 to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the Act. Petitioner No.2 submitted a detailed reply clearly explaining that the fatal accident was due to contributory negligence of the driver and the deceased cleaner, without the knowledge, consent and connivance of the occupier and factory manager, whereas al l sound safety measures were in place in the factory premises, but ignoring the real fact leading to fatal accident, ADF mechanically lodged the prosecution against the petitioners under section 92 of the Act. The Court has taken cognizance of the al leged offence against the petitioners. Therefore the petitioners have f iled the present petition seeking to quash the said proceedings.