SM 1 52.apl.132.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2011 M/s. J. M. Baxi & Co. and another ....Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate, for the Applicants. Mrs. U. V. Kejriwal, for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI , J. DATED : 11 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present Application, the Applicants pray for quashing the proceedings arising out of C.C.No.9416/SS/10 filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 16 th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. 3. The complaint has been filed by the Respondent No. 2, alleging therein that the accused company had undertaken the work of discharging Cargo from the ship 'Iran Sokan' berthed at 14- Indira Docks of Mumbai Port Trust. It is alleged that on 28 th April, SM 2 52.apl.132.11 2006, one K. S. Shivraj, who was on Board Labour slipped to the lower hold, which was about 25 ft. deep, from the twin deck floor. 4. The complainant, therefore filed a complaint charging the accused for having committed an offence punishable under th Dock Workers (Safety, Health & Welfare) Regulations, 1990. 5. Shri. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants were only entrusted with the work of discharging cargo. It is, however, submitted that the Applicants do not have control over the Ship namely 'M. V. Iran Sokan'. It is submitted that the responsibility to maintain the safety regulations on the said ship was with the master of M. V. Iran Sokan . It is submitted the lid of the man-hole for access to the lower hold was kept open by on the ship, which resulted in the unfortunate accident. 6. Mrs. Kejriwal, learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 2, on instructions of the complainant, who is personally present in the Court, vehemently opposes the Application. She submits that it is the responsibility of the Applicants, who were the directors to maintain the safety regulations. Having failed with the duty, the Applicants/Accused are rightly charged with the offence SM 3 52.apl.132.11 punishable under the said regulations and no indulgence or interference is warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. From the perusal of the documents, annexed at page 19, it would reveal that the complainant himself observed thus: “The investigation into the causes of the accident has revealed that the lid of the man-hole (opening) for access to the lower h old was kept opened, which was supposed to remain closed since lower hold cargo was not meant for Mumbai Port and that was the predominant reason for the fall of the victim directly to the lower hold which was about 25 ft. from the twin deck floor and his death. You, as Master of the vessel M. V. IRAN SOKAN have breached Regulation 33 (4) read with Regulation 7(2) of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1990.” It can be thus clear that even according to the complainant, it is the master of the vessel M.V. Iran Sokan who was responsible and liable to be charged for the offence under the said regulations. 8. It can further be seen that the Respondent No. 3, who is the wife of the deceased, has no grievance against the present Applicants. She is personally present alongwith her son and SM 4 52.apl.132.11 affidavit is also filed by her. All the dues have been paid to the Respondent No. 3. The Applicants, in addition, have agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) by way of compensation to the wife of the deceased. A Demand Draft of the same has been handed over by the Counsel for the Applicants to the Counsel for the Respondent No. 3. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances accruing in the matter, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582, the present proceedings deserves to be quashed. However, it is made clear that the proceedings have been quashed taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances as accruing in the present matter and without it being treated as precedent. 9. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)