G P PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are accused in C. C. No. 9087 of 2002 on the file of the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. with a request to quash the proceedings initiated in the said case besides cognisance taken by that Court for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts, which gave rise to the present matter, are: the first petitioner-occupier/manager, second petitioner-Vice-President (Production) and third petitioner-Supervisor of M/s. Caryl laboratories Limited, situated in Chikkaswamy Layout at jaraganahalli in Bangalore, have been prosecuted in C. C. No. 12933 of 2001 on the complaint filed against them for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, alleging that on 30-9-2001 a workman of the said factory by name Shivanand got electric shock holding a pipe, connected to the overhead tank and water basin to ensure proper support to come down through the M. S. ladder and died and that was due to violation of Rules relating to safety measures provided to prevent electrocution and thereby committed the offence alleged. After the said case was filed by the Inspector of Factories, the Police inspector of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the said factory is located, has filed charge-sheet under section 304-A of the IPC after completing investigation in Crime No. 615 of 2001 registered against the petitioners, alleging that in spite of bringing to the notice of the petitioners-accused repeatedly that the machine is giving current shock, they neglected with irresponsibility telling that nobody will die even if there is any current shock and as such on account of their negligence, Shivanand, a worker in the said factory, got electrocution on 30-9-2001 when he had been to attend the work of cleaning distilled tank of the said factory and died and hence, they have committed offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. So, challenging the cognisance taken and issuing process against them for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) WITH the consent of both sides, the matter was taken for final hearing and heard. It was vehemently argued for the petitioners-accused that when they have been prosecuted before the Criminal Court under the Factories Act, initiating parallel proceeding against them again on the same set of facts is not at all proper and as such, the proceedings require to be quashed. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Daljith Singh Ghai and Another v State by Station House Officer, wadi Police Station, Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District, it was also submitted for them that mere violation of safety measures by them or their mere negligence, even if believed, does not attract Section 304-A of the IPC. So also relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of ambalal D. Bhatt v State of Gujarat , which is in fact relied on by this court in the decision referred to already. Further, relied on the decision in the case of G. Sagar Suri and Another v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, in support of the argument that this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , in such a matter. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader supported the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners. Perused the records carefully.