PARKASH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 06.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- X, Ranchi, in S.T. No. 648 of 2014, whereby the learned A.J.C.-X, Ranchi has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and directed him to remain physically present for framing of charge.

(2.) The prosecution case arises out of Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2013 lodged by one Pappy Saini stating therein that on 6.2.2013 in the morning, catering work was being carried out at the ground floor of the building of one Prakash Agarwal and several persons were engaged in preparation of food. It has been mentioned that at that place, on the instruction of Prakash Agrawal, gas cylinders were being refilled. During the course of refiling gas cylinder, leakage occurred and some cylinder caught fire due to which Gas Cylinder exploded resulting in injury of several persons including persons who were engaged in preparation of food. They were taken to the Hospital, but later on one worker, namely, Vijay Ram succumbed to his injury. It has been mentioned that knowing fully well that refilling can cause incident, upon the direction and within the knowledge of Prakash Agrawal this refilling was being done. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Pappy Saini, the instant F.I.R. was registered under sections 285, 337, 338, 304 of the Indian Penal Code and under Order 3(1- B) of L.P.G. Regulation, Supply and Distribution Order, 2000. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under sections 285, 337, 338, 304 of the Indian Penal Code and under Order 3(1-B) of L.P.G. Regulation, Supply and Distribution Order, 2000. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 21.03.2015for discharge, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.06.2015 giving rise to this revision application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material on record to proceed against this petitioner. He further submits that as there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner and the petitioner should have been discharged and the impugned order is absolutely bad.