Madras High Court
V.Baskar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.1292 of 2019
and Crl.MP.No.17515 of 2019
V.Baskar ... Petitioner
..vs..
State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by SHO
Villupuram Taluk Police Station
Villupuram District,
Crime No.297 of 2014. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401
Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.127 of 2019 in S.C.No.133 of
2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram (FAC) dated 24.10.2019 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devaraj
For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page No.1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated
24.10.2019 in C.M.P.No.127 of 2019 in S.C.No.133 of 2019 on the file
of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram (FAC).
2. The case was registered against the petitioner for the offence
under Sections 286, 336, 304(ii) of IPC r/w Section 8 & 9(B)(3)(C) r/w 5
of Explosive Substance Act. After completion of investigation, the
respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Villupuram. After committal, the Sessions Judge taken
cognizance of the case in S.C.No.133 of 2019. When the matter is
pending before the Sessions Court, the petitioner filed a discharge
petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C and the same was dismissed on
24.10.2019. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this
Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is
no materials to implicate the petitioner in this case. Originally, the case
Page No.2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 286,
336, 304(ii) of IPC r/w Section 8 and 9 (B)(3)(c) of Explosive Act r/w
Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act. On completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 286, 338, 304(ii) of
IPC r/w Section 8 and 9 (b) of Explosive Substance Act. Subsequently,
by deleting Sections 338 and 304(ii) of IPC, the investigating officer
filed an additional charge sheet for the offence under Section 286 of IPC
and Section 8 and 9 (b) of Explosive Substance Act, which is a lesser
punishment. He would further submit that no materials would show that
the petitioner has involved in any of the offence as mentioned in the
charge sheet and without any materials he need not undergo ordeal of
trial. Therefore, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C before the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram
and the same was dismissed.
4. In support of his contention the leaned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in Narender Bir Singh
Page No.3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
Vs. State reported in MANU/TN/3751/2010; Sasikumari and Ors. Vs.
The State, Inspector of Police reported in MANU/TN/7612/2018 ; and
Sekar and others Vs.State in Crl.A.No.687 of 2016.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the petitioner, who engaged the untrained labourers in the explosive
substance work is liable for the said offence. Further, whether the
petitioner has followed the safety measures or not can be decided in the
trial, but, not at this stage.
6.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that in the licence, no prescribed qualification was mentioned for
the employees, those who were engaged in the explosive substances
work. Therefore, the petitioner has not violated any rules and without any
materials no charges can be framed and hence, the petitioner cannot
undergo with the trial.
Page No.4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8.Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the shop and the
accident had taken place in the said premises and five workers died. It is
a settled proposition of law that while deciding the petition under Section
227 Cr.P.C, the Court need not conduct roving enquiry upon the
materials placed before it. If the judge consider that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused and if the judge is of the
opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence he may frame a charge against the accused. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the licence,
there is no specific qualification mentioned for the workers, but, whereas,
the accident had taken place in the premises of the petitioner and five
persons died in the said accident. Further, whether the petitioner had
followed the safety measures or not can be decided only after the trial,
but, not at this stage. The defence taken by the accused need not be
Page No.5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
considered at this stage. Further, this Court is of the view that the
decisions cited supra are not applicable to the case on hand.
9.Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any
perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to take all of his defence during trial.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ms
To
1.The II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Villupuram (FAC).
2.The Station House Officer,
Villupuram Taluk Police Station
Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page No.6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
Crl.R.C.No.1292 of 2019
and
Crl.MP.No.17515 of 2019
19.01.2021
Page No.7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
