SUMATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in S.C.No.313 of 2015 on the file of the 4th Additional District Judge, Madurai, filed for the offences under Ss. 286, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC r/w Sec. 9B(1)(a) of the Explosive Act, 1884.

(2.) The allegation in the charge sheet is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of fire crackers as proprietor of Anantham Fire Works. The said concern has a licence to manufacture the fire works. The said licence is renewed from time to time. The allegations in the charge sheet are that one Prabhu was the Foreman in the said concern. On 24/9/2013, at about 05.00 p.m, when the employees in the said concern were involved in the process of manufacturing of fire crackers, the occurrence took place, as a result of which, one employee, by name, Pothumani died on the spot and two other employees, by name, Vijaya and Chinnaponnu died at the hospital and 18 other employees suffered either grievous or simple injuries. The Foreman, by name, Prabhu, who was originally shown as an accused, also suffered burn injuries and succumbed to those injuries later. The allegation in the charge is that the concern did not adequately follow the safety regulations and also violated the licence conditions.

(3.) The allegations are that the concern did not appoint a qualified Supervisor to supervise the manufacture of crackers and impart the training as regards the safety measures to be adopted by the employees. It is further alleged that the fire crackers were prepared in an open space and not in the designated rooms. The concern had also not covered the floor with a rubber mat, which is mandatory. Because of the explosion, the roof in the cutting machine had fallen over one employee and caused injuries to 17 employees. It is also stated that the petitioner was also prosecuted under the Factories Act in STC Nos.81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 92 and 95 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. It is also an admitted fact that in all the cases, the petitioner was convicted on her plea of guilt and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000.00 each.