Telangana High Court
C.Kesava Rao vs The State Of A.P.R Ep., By Its Pp on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2379 of 2012
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed seeking to call
for the records and set aside the order of the learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar in Crl.A.No.103 of
2012, dated 24.09.2012 confirming the order of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Sulthanabad in
S.T.C.No.32 of 2009, dated 30.06.2012.
2. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner
on 21.02.2024 and 06.03.2024. Even today also there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Therefore,
this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of
the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
"Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1", wherein
it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss
any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining
the merits.
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
3. The case of the prosecution is that the Inspector of
Factories, Karimnagar lodged a complaint before the learned
Magistrate against the accused alleging that, Burra Ravi
employee in the factory was assisting an electrician to fix a
tube light to the roof of elevator platform, which is
approximately 24 meters at height from ground level; after
fixing the tube light, they were getting down from the
platform through stairway on 13.07.2009 at 04.00 PM, Burra
Ravi slipped accidentally and fell down on the ground and as
the width of the foot rest of the steps of the stair case was
insufficient, he died on the spot. If the width of the foot rest
was sufficient, deceased would not have fallen or lost his life
and the management did not take safety measure and allowed
contravention of the act and death of the employee.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10.
5. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused found
guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 92 of the
Factories Act for contravention of Section 32 r/w 41 of the
Factories Act and Rule 61 F(1) A.P.Factories Rules and
sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by
the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.103 of 2012 before
the Court of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, at
Karimnagar. By its judgment dated 24.09.2012, the appellate
Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by
the trial Court. Challenging the same the present revision is
filed.
6. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State and perused the record.
7. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below
with regard to the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused and
the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has
also not shown me anything, which would discredit the
evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as
conviction is concerned, but with regard to the sentence, it
may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2012
and almost 12 years have passed and during this period the
revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he
did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is
expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the
period already undergone by the revision petitioner/accused,
while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court against
him.
8. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 13.03.2024
mmr/gvl
