JAGDEEP CHAND BALI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a complaint by respondent No. 2-Smt. Bharpai widow of Rajinder Singh (deceased in this case) F.I.R. No. 429 dated 28.5.1994 was registered under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, wherein the following material allegations have been made.

(2.) ON 22.5.1994, at about 5-30 a.m. the complainant's husband Rajinder Singh left for duty saying that the petitioner-Jagdeep Chand Bali (hereinafter referred as J.C. Bali) had some work to be done by Rajinder Singh. But at 10 a.m. on that day complainant was informed about the death of her husband. On 27.5.1994, the complainant came to know from the employees that her husband had died due to the electric shock while working on the electric pole. The elder brother of Rajinder Singh told her that death took place since the petitioner-J.C. Bali intentionally switched on the electricity. The deceased had also told her a few days back that the Junior Engineer nourished a grudge against him and used to harass him.

(3.) AS against this order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Smt. Bharpai (on whose statement the FIR was registered) filed Criminal Revision No. 1 of 3.1.1995 on the file of the Sessions Court, Gurgaon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, held that the revision filed by her was maintainable inasmuch as the State has not filed an appeal. He also did not agree with the view that the petitioner was protected under Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The learned counsel Additional Sessions Judge observed that at the time of considering the materials for the purpose of framing the charge, the Court has only to see whether there are grounds for presuming a case against the accused or not, and that the statement of PWs Krishan Kumar and Darshan Singh showed that they had informed the petitioner that the deceased was working on the line, and that inspite of it, the petitioner had switched on the electricity as a result of which Rajinder Singh had died. He, therefore, held that the petitioner herein cannot be presumed to have acted in good faith. Ultimately, he allowed the Revision Petition by his order dated 30.9.1997 (Annexure P-2), set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and held that the petitioner was liable to be charge sheeted for the offences as mentioned in the police report, and to be tried accordingly.