Madras High Court
A.P.Selvaraj vs The State Represented By on 12 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.3313 and 3314 of 2021
A.P.Selvaraj ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvengadam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.44 of 2020)
2. C.Abirami
Village Administrative Officer,
Naduvapatti Village,
Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.36 of
2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli
District, as against the petitioner herein.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban
For R1 andn R2 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
ORDER
The criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the
PRC.No.36/2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.
2.There are totally two accused in which, the petitioner is arrayed as the
first accused. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons without
following the safety measures for the employees, who are working in their
units and they were not provided with sufficient safeguards, thereby, resulted
in death of two persons in pursuant to the fire accident, which had occurred
on 06.03.2020 at about 12.30 pm in M/s.Sri Kaliswari Fire Works Private
Limited. The petitioner is arrayed as the first accused. The petitioner is the
one of the Directors, M/s. Sri Kaliswari Fire Works Private Limited. It is a
private company and it has totally 21 Directors. Among them, only the
petitioner herein, is now prosecuted leaving out the other Directors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
3.On perusal of the entire charge sheet, it revealed that the M/s. Sri
Kaliswari Fireworks Private Limited is managed by the petitioner herein and
the second accused is the Supervisor, who was engaged to supervise the work
done by the employees. Further, there is no material had been produced by
the prosecution to the effect that the petitioner herein, who was in-charge on
the day-to-day affairs of the said Company. Further vicarious liability cannot
be fastened on the Director of the Company for the offence under Penal Code
provision unless and until the statue contemplates vicarious liability. It cannot
be fastened upon an individual without legal sanity. Even if the averments in
the charge sheet are taken at their face value, the petitioner cannot be charged
for the offence. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner is
being in-charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.
Now, the petitioner and another are charge sheeted for the offence under
Section 304(ii) of IPC and r/w Section 9(b)(1)(a) of the Explosives Act, 1884.
Admittedly, the petitioner is the license holder of the M/s.Sri Kaliswari
Fireworks private Limited and it is valid up to 31.12.2023.
4.On perusal of the list of the Directors of the M/s.Sri Kaliswari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
Fireworks Private Limited revealed that the petitioner is the one of the
Directors and it is also evident from the articles of the Association of M/s.Sri
Kaliswari Fireworks Private Limited.
5.That apart on perusal of the entire charge sheet and the other
materials annexed along with the charge sheet revealed that the prosecution
has not produced any material to show that the petitioner had acted in
violation of the rules and statues thereby, causing endangerment to the
workers. Except the statement of the Village Administrative Officer, no one
has spoken about violation of the rules and non providing any safety measures
to its employees. Even assuming that the accused persons failed to provide
any safety measures and without following the rules, the prosecution does not
even whisper about what rules were violated and what safety measures were
not provided to its employees. According to the Rule 10(1)(a) of the
Explosives Rules 2008, no explosive shall be manufactured at any place
except at a licensed factory with manufacturing process duly approved by the
licensing authority. Then, the Rule 10(1)(A) says that the buildings to be used
for manufacture of explosives shall comply with the specification laid down
in Schedule 4 annexed to these rules. However, the prosecution was failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
place any material to show that the petitioner's company violated such and
such rule.
6.That apart, the wife of the deceased filed affidavit before this Court
and revealed that they have received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (each) from
M/s.Sri Kaliswari Fireworks Private Limited in addition to that, Rs.25,000/-
by a separate voucher. They also received various benefits from its employer
such as employers' provident fund, employer's state insurance scheme, group
insurance etc., They have no interest to prosecute the accused persons in this
case.
7.In this regard, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner rely
upon the judgment reported in 2008 SCC 568, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India held as follows:
'Learned counsel for the respondent State made an
endeavour to bring the case within the ambit of the third
alternative, as the case cannot possibly be brought under
any of the other two. The act proved to have been
committed by the appellant alongwith Babu Khan in this
case is manufacture of explosive substances like bombs.
Hence what is to be established is, the above act must have
been done with the knowledge that such act by itself was
likely to cause death. If some other act had intervened
which the offender did not do consciously which triggered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
the explosions that could not be counted as the act for that
offender. No evidence had been let in by the prosecution to
show that mere manufacture of such bombs is likely to
cause death of any person, nor any evidence for showing
that appellant had the knowledge that by manufacturing
bombs death would possibly be caused to any human being
without any other act being done.
We may also point out that prosecution has not
brought out any circumstance by which the Court could
remotely attribute knowledge to the appellant that by
manufacturing and possessing bombs death of any person
was a likely consequence. By manufacturing a bomb, alone
no one can normally think that it would explode without
anything more done. Here something more would have
happened which caused the explosion, what was that
additional act is unknown to us. At any rate there is no
material to show that the appellant had done that
additional act.'
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the act must have been
done with a knowledge that such act be itself was likely to cause death. If
some other act had intervened which the offender did not do consciously
which triggered the explosions that could not be counted as the act for that
offender.
9.In the case on hand, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner's
act was likely to cause death of two employees. In view of the above, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
entire proceedings cannot sustain as against the petitioner and it is liable to be
quashed. Accordingly the proceedings in PRC.No.36/2020 are quashed and
the criminal original petition is allowed as against the petitioner alone.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
12.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lr
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvengadam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.44 of 2020)
2. The Village Administrative Officer,
Naduvapatti Village,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5720 of 2021
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
