STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is filed by the State having been aggrieved by the judgment dt. 17-9-91, passed by the Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in C. C. No. 704/88, acquitting the respondents-accused for the of1997 State of Karnataka v. M. Siddappa 1611fences charged under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : That the Respondent-Accused No. 1 is the occupier and the Respondent-Accused No. 2 is the Manager of the Factory- M/s. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhana Ltd., Pandavapura. On 14-3-88, one Casual Worker by name N. Swamygowda bearing Card No. 860 while on duty was instructed by Karigowda, Deputy Chief Engineer to do the grinding work at baggas elevator. While he was doing the work with the assistance of the grinding machine, the said Swamygowda received electrical shock and as a result, he collapsed on the spot. That one Ramachandra wireman standing near the plug point was instructed by the deceased Swamygowda to insert two bare wires to the plug point without any safety plug. He was not provided with rubber shoes and gloves; let apart, the earthing lead wire of the elevator was cut at the terminal and only two bare wires viz., phase and neutral were connected to the plug point without safety plug. With the switch put on by the wireman Ramachandra, the deceased Swamygowda suffered electrical shock and died on the spot due to the same.

(3.) That the P. W. 1 being the Inspector of Factories had launched prosecution against the respondents-accused for contravention of Rule 86 of the Karnataka Factories Rules, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The Respondents having pleaded not guilty before the said Magistrate, the prosecution had examined 3 witnesses and also got marked 18 documents in support of their case. After hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned Judgment, whereby he had acquitted the respondents-accused and it is the said order of acquittal now under challenge by the State before this Court.