HAMIDKHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.628 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court,Sasthamcotta has filed this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash annexure A3 final report in the case.

(2.) THE case has been registered under Annexure A2 FIR on the complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,Sasthamcotta having been forwarded for investigation and report under S.156(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The charge laid against the petitioner after due investigation is that he is the owner of Modern Wire Cut Bricks and he had stored clay in the manufacturing unit for the purpose of manufacture of bricks in a rash and negligent manner to a height of 7 meters,to a length of 40 meters and to a width of 16.20 meters so as to endanger the personal safety of others.The complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant,who has sustained injury consequent on sliding of the clay so stored.No doubt he was a worker in the factory run by the accused.

(3.) THE question as to whether the petitioner is only a partner and not the sole proprietor is not a matter that need be considered at this stage.At least he was one who was in management.The fact that clay has been stored to a height of 7 meters and in large quantity to a length of 40 meters and width of 16.20 meters shows that the storing of clay was done in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and the personal safety of others.Storing of clay to a height of 7 meters namely about 21 feet height renders clay so stored to slide and to endanger human life or the personal safety of others.The very fact that such an act has been caused to be done constitutes the offence under S.336 of the Indian Penal Code and it is not necessary that any untoward incident should have taken place pursuant thereto to constitute the offence under S.336.The decision in Narsing Charan v.Emperor(AIR 1915 Cal.295)also elucidates the scope of S.336 as casting a liability on the person who is in control of premises to take necessary precautions to ensure safety.The decision of the Apex Court in Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v.State of Maharashtra(AIR 1965 SC 1616)interpreting and analysing the ingredients of offence under S.285 IPC also throws light on the question as to how and when ingredients of an offence under S.336 IPC can be said to have been made out.The circumstances available in the instant case suggest that ingredients of the offence are made out and that the allegations if established on evidence is to render the case one to end in conviction.Consequently therefore this is not a case in which this Court can interfere at this stage to quash the proceedings. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is without merits and it is dismissed.