Karnataka High Court

G V Prasad And Anr vs The State And Anr on 22 October, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760
                                                    CRL.P No. 200662 of 2024




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH                   ®
                          DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                           BEFORE

                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ


                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200662 OF 2024

                                   (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

                   BETWEEN:


                   1.   G. V. PRASAD S/O SHIVARAMKRISHANAYYA,
                        AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                        R/O: KRISHNAPARASAD RICE MILL INDUSTRIES,
                        PLOT NO.1, SHAKTI NAGAR, RAICHUR
                        (AS PER CHARGE SHEET),
                        ACTUALLY R/O PLOT NO.D-11-1, VAJARAM TIARE,
                        HAVALLAHALLI, YELHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.
Digitally signed
by SWETA           2.   BALASUBRAMANIAM S/O KRISHANAMRAJU,
KULKARNI                AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
Location: High
Court Of                R/O: KRISHNAPARASAD RICE MILL INDUSTRIES,
Karnataka               PLOT NO.1, SHAKTI NAGAR, RAICHUR,
                        (AS IN CHARGE SHEET),
                        ACTUALLY R/O: RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
                        SHAKTINAGAR, RAICHUR.

                                                              ...PETITIONERS

                   (BY SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, AND
                    SRI. VARUN PATIL., ADVOCATES)

                   AND:
                           -2-
                                       NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760
                                  CRL.P No. 200662 of 2024




1.   THE STATE THROUGH RAICHUR RURAL P.S.,
     THROUGH THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI-585107.


2.   SANJEETKUMAR S/O RAMAKANT PASWAN,
     AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE,
     R/O: BAJITPUR, TQ. NALANDA,
     DIST. HILSA, BIHAR-801302.



                                           ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
 NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 22.10.2024)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. (OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS ACT-2023,

PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH ALL

FURTHER    PROCEEDINGS   IN     C.C.NO.260/2018   OF   THE

RESPONDENT P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF IIIRD ADDL.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-III, RAICHUR, FOR THE

OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-A READ WITH

SECTION 34 OF IPC, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                               -3-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760
                                    CRL.P No. 200662 of 2024




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ


                        ORAL ORDER

Since, the question involved in this case is already

decided in the case of Ananthakumar vs. State of

Karnataka, reported in AIR Online 2019 KAR 565,

instant petition is taken up for final disposal.

02. It is contended by the learned counsel for

petitioners that parallel proceedings, leading to parallel act

in respect of the very same incident cannot go on and the

culmination of the same, will result in double jeopardy.

Hence, it is submitted that, petitioners have sought to

quash the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime

No.235/2017, registered at Raichur Rural Police Station,

for the offence punishable under Section 304-A read with

Section 34 of IPC.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

03. The above case came to be registered against

petitioners, working as owner cum occupier and the

manager of one 'Krishnaprasad Rice Mill Industries', Vadlur

road, Raichur, as one of the employee of the said Rice Mill

by name Sujeet Paswan died due to electrocution while

pumping water using a ½ H.P. electric motor.

04. In the complaint lodged by the co-worker by

name Sanjeetkumar, it is alleged that the electric motor

was old and the manager of the Rice Mill without taking

any precaution and providing safety measures, instructed

the deceased to lift water from the tank by using the said

electric motor.

05. The police on completion of investigation filed

charge-sheet against petitioners for the offence punishable

under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of IPC, alleging

that by not providing safety measures and without proper

precautions, they instructed the deceased to remove water

using the old ½ H.P. motor and therefore, the deceased

died due to the negligence on the part of the petitioners.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

06. It is not in dispute that a separate complaint

under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the State

represented by the Assistant Director of Factories, Raichur

Division, Raichur, against both the petitioners, namely

occupier and manager of the factory, alleging violation of

the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and Karnataka

Factories Rules, 1969, wherein the said violations are

made punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act,

1948.

07. The incident took place on 06.10.2017 at about

05.00 p.m. near gauge elevator sump of the paddy

cleaning section of the factory in question. In the

complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., it is averred

that there was water logging in the gauge elevator sump

of the paddy cleaning section of the factory and the

deceased was engaged in de-watering the sump using a ½

H.P. portable motor with metallic body with pipe

arrangement and electric supply through one of the

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

electrical points in the factory, provided with MCB rating

10 amperes. During the course of doing the job, at around

05.00 p.m., he fell near the pump used for de-watering

near the elevator sump of the paddy cleaning section and

died due to electric shock and deceased / worker was not

using hand gloves or shoes while doing the said job.

08. It is alleged that the occupier failed to provide

maintain plant & systems of work in the factory in a safe

manner and without risks to health, failed to provide such

information, instruction, training as are necessary to

ensure the health and safety of all workers at work in the

factory, failed to provide earth leakage to prevent

electrocution or other hazard etc., and thereby violated

Section 7-A (2) (a), 2(c) of the Factories Act, 1948 and

Rules 86 (2) and 136 of the Karnataka Factories Rules,

1969, punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act,

1948.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

09. It is relevant to extract Section 92 of the

Factories Act, 1948, which reads as under:-

"92. General penalty for offences,- Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of Section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manger of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two years] or with fine which may extend to [one lakh rupees] or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to [one thousand rupees] for each day on which the contravention is so continued:

[Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under Section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than [twenty - five thousand rupees] in the case of an accident causing death, and [five thousand rupees] in the case of an accident causing serious bodily injury.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

Explanation.- In this section and in Section 94 "serious bodily injury" means an injury which involves, or in all probability will involve, the permanent loss of the use of, or permanent injury to, any limb or the permanent loss of, or injury to, sight or hearing, or the fracture of any bone, but shall not include, the fracture of bone or joint (not being fracture or more than one bone or joint) of any phalanges of the hand or foot.).

10. In the decision noted supra, in a similar

circumstance, following questions were framed:

I. Whether initiation of prosecution under Section 304-

A of IPC while prosecution for offence punishable

under Section 92 of the Factories Act, is legally

permissible.?

II. Whether parallel or simultaneous prosecution is

legally impermissible.?

III. Whether the contravention of Section 29 (1) (a) (ii)

and Section 32 (b) of the Factories Act, 1948 of the

Factories Act punishable under Section 92 be clubbed

with the offence punishable under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code.?

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

11. Insofar as question No.3 raised in the above

said decision, contravention are of different provisions of

the Factories Act, however, the question remains as to

whether the initiation of prosecution under Section 304-A

of IPC is legally permissible, while prosecution for the

offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act,

1948, is launched and as to whether parallel or

simultaneous prosecution is legally impermissible.

12. While answering the above questions, the

following observations are made in the aforementioned

decision, relying on other similar judgments, which hold

the field; Paras No.9, 10 and 14, are relevant, which are

extracted hereunder: -

"9. Referring to Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and relevant decisions on the point, this Court took note of the fact that Section 92 of the Factories Act provides for punishment of imprisonment for a period upto two years for contravention of any

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

provisions of this Act and if such contravention has resulted in an accident causing death or serious bodily injury, minimum fine of Rs.25,000/- in addition to imprisonment. Likewise Section 304-A prescribes that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Considering these provisions in the light of Section 219 of Cr.P.C., it was held that the offences made punishable under Section 92 of the Act and Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code are of the same kind and are punishable with same quantum of punishment and hence, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act becomes applicable requiring the offender to be prosecuted only under one enactment and consequently, the proceedings initiated against the accused therein were quashed. The ratio laid down in the above decision has been followed by this Court in the case of M.ZAKIR AHMED (supra) and V. REVATHI (supra).

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

10. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in the above decisions. Even otherwise the scheme of the Factories Act does not permit parallel prosecutions under two different Acts against a person accused of committing offences under the Factories Act. Section 92 is the only section under the Act which makes the contravention of the provisions of the Act, punishable as criminal offence and prescribes punishment and fine.

14. In view of the above factual and legal position, the registration of FIR against the petitioners by respondent No.1 and consequent investigation and submission of the charge sheet paving way for the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code as well as cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is held as illegal, without jurisdiction and a clear case of abuse of process of Court."

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case and in view of the decision noted supra, this

Court is of the considered view that prosecution under

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7760

Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioners while

prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of

the Factories Act, 1948, is initiated, is not permissible, as

there cannot be a parallel or simultaneous prosecution in

respect of the very same incident, in view of the

punishment provided under Section 92 of the Factories

Act, 1948. Accordingly, the following;