Telangana High Court

Ntpc Limited, Rep By Its Geneal ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Its P.P And ... on 8 September, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

      HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD
                            *****

            Criminal Petition No.2685 OF 2014

Between:

NTPC Limited rep. by its General Manager
and others.                                 ... Petitioners
                          And

The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor
and another.                                  ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 08.09.2022

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1   Whether Reporters of Local
     newspapers may be allowed to           Yes/No
     see the Judgments?

 2   Whether the copies of judgment
     may be marked to Law                   Yes/No
     Reporters/Journals

 3   Whether Their
     Ladyship/Lordship wish to see          Yes/No
     the fair copy of the Judgment?



                                            _________________
                                            K.SURENDER, J
                                 2


           * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                     + CRL.P. No.2685 of 2014
% Dated 08.09.2022


# NTPC Limited rep. by its General Manager
and others.                                ... Petitioners

                              And

$ The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor
and another.                                    ..Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narusu.


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for R1

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
                                3


           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.2685 OF 2014
ORDER:

1. The petitioners/A1 to A3 are aggrieved by the order of

taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani vide CC NO.79 of 2014 against the petitioners,

on the basis of private complaint for the offence under

Sections 202 and 304-A of IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant

Chittempalli Srinu filed private complaint stating that on

18.06.2013, the deceased, who is his friend met with fatal

accident while he was standing on the platform inspecting the

repair work of the arresting online of steam leakage from the

pipeline. Suddenly, the H.P. steam line busted and steam

inside the pipe line came out and hit the victim and the victim

fell on the floor from about 5 meters. He received grievous

burn injuries and died on 19.06.2013.

For the reason of the petitioners, who are Company,

General Manager (O & M) and General Manager of 1st

petitioner company, having not taken proper precautions to

prevent the accident and that they have sent the victim on

duty without providing suitable gear for protection, Petitioners

are liable. A complaint was lodged to the police, the police

have refused to take complaint for which reason, private

complaint was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits though

precautions were taken accident had occurred. The Director of

Factories, A.P. has examined the incident and after conducting

enquiry recommended that action should be dropped against

the Management of NTPC. Accordingly, the Government of

Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No.7243/Lab.II/A2/2013-2,

dated 27.01.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary to

Government, on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

The said notification was issued after enquiry was conducted

and report filed.

4. The complaint that was made before the Court discloses

that death occurred on account of bursting of steam line.

Nothing is placed before the learned Magistrate regarding the

infrastructure that was provided and also the requisite

protections that were taken or not taken. A vague allegation

that the petitioners are responsible for the accident for not

taking proper precautions would not suffice.

5. Unless it is shown that there are acts which are done

deliberately in negligent manner having knowledge about the

consequences, Section 304-A of IPC is not attracted. Nothing

is stated in the complaint as to how the second petitioner as

the General Manager (O&M) and also the third petitioner as

General Manager were responsible for the accident.

6. NTPC is India's largest energy conglomerate with roots

planted way back in 1975 to accelerate power development in

India. Since then it has established itself as the dominant

power major with presence in the entire value chain of power

generation business. From fossil fuels it has forayed into

generating electricity via hydro, nuclear and renewable energy

sources. This foray will play a major role in lowering its carbon

footprint by reducing green house gas emissions. To

strengthen its core business, the corporation has diversified

into the fields of consultancy, power trading, training of power

professionals, rural electrification, ash utilization and coal

mining as well.

7. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners have nothing to do with the

establishment of the PSU/NTPC or the infrastucture. The

process of construction was undertaken long prior to the

appointment of 2nd and 3rd petitioners as General Managers.

8. Section 202 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:

"200. Examination of complainant. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-

(a) if a public servant acting or- purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or

(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them."

9. In the complaint, there is no allegation as to how an

offence under Section 202 IPC is attracted. The incident is

known to one and all and also enquiry was conducted

regarding the said accidental death. In the said circumstances,

the question of petitioners intentionally omitting to give

information regarding offence being committed does not arise.

10. As already discussed above there is nothing in the

complaint to suggest that the petitioners have done any rash

or negligent act having knowledge about its consequences. The

Court cannot proceed on an assumption that the petitioners

are liable for the death without any proof of negligence only for

the reason of accidental death. The Director of Factories, A.P.