P K TAILANG S/O K D TAILANG Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DURG, DISTRICT DURG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is to quash the prosecution of the petitioner who is working as Deputy General Manager to the Bhilai Steel Plant for which he has been charge-sheeted under Sections 287, 337, 304(A) read with Section 34 of IPC under the FIR No. 24/2015.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was posted as Deputy General Manager, Water Management Department with Bhilai Steel Plant. On 12.06.2014, due to leakage in the pipeline of the factory the Carbon Monoxide gas leaked out and spread around in which 06 persons died and 30 were injured for which charge-sheet under Section 87, 337, 304(A) read with Section 34 of IPC was filed against the petitioner and other persons. It is further contended that on the same facts the petitioner has been convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as AFR the 'Act of 1948') for violation of Section 31 read with Rule 67(3) of C.G. Factory Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1962') and has been sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lacs. The petitioner was further convicted under Section 92 of the Act of 1948 for violation of Section 31 read with Rule 67(7) of Rules 1962 and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 Lacs. The petitioner was further convicted under Section 92 of the Act of 1948 for violation of Section 109 of the Act of 1948 read with Section 114 of the Rules of 1962 and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lacs by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class i.e. Labour Court, Durg vide judgment dated 02.12.2016. It is contended that the present petitioner cannot be convicted for the same offence for which he stood convicted by the Labour Court, Durg. It would be covered under double jeopardy.

(3.) To support his contention reliance was placed on Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr., 2011 AIR(SCW) 788 and advancing the technology it is stated that the present petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it was held that he cannot be punished for the same offence and likewise for the same offence since the petitioner was convicted by the Labour Court, Durg for the same facts for which the incidence took place, the trial under IPC cannot continue. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was on leave from 06.06.2014 to 23.06.2014.