K.P. RAMASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition for anticipatory bail. Offence alleged are under Section 304(ii) and 337 of IPC.

(2.) According to Mr. V. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-4, in the unfortunate incident that took place inside the petitioner's factory, 7 persons have lost their lives and 11 persons were subjected to occupational hazards. However, besides the Factory Manager, Personnel Officer, Plant Supervisor, petitioner, who is the Chairman of the company also has been implicated.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel further contended that even taking the allegations as such projected by the prosecution an offence under Section 304(ii) IPC is not attracted as against the petitioner. The essential ingredients for an offence under Section 304(ii) IPC are guilty mind (knowledge) and overt act on the part of the petitioner. To apply Section 304(ii) IPC as against a person the foremost requirement is an act committed as against a person the foremost that has contributed/responsible for the death. However, in this case, committed any act which was responsible for the incident inside the factory. Petitioner is residing in Coimbatore. He cannot be held to have committed an act with requisite knowledge that it is likely to cause the death of the employees.