SM 1 12.wp.2377.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2377 OF 2009 Ajay Inderjit Kapur ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Amit Desai with Sanjog Parab i/b Sanjog Parab for the Petitioner. Mr. D. R. More, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Vijay Limaye i/b City Legal for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI , J. DATED : 19 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the JMFC, Palghar and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for discharge and the revision and further praying for discharge of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is a Director of M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd., which has a factory at Tarapur. In the said factory, an accident had occurred on 20 th March, 2004, due to which, Mr. Panjak G. Pimple been received burn injury. After giving treatment at the local hospital, he was taken to Masina Hospital at Byculla. He succumbed to the with certain injuries on 30 th April, 2004. The present F.I.R. is lodged on 23 rd SM 2 12.wp.2377.09 December, 2005. 4. The applicant filed an application for discharge before the learned Trail Judge and the same is rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petitioner had preferred a revision and the same is also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Palghar. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 5. Shri. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that both the Courts below have erred in rejecting the application and the revision, on the ground that since, the petitioner is a Director of the company and he was incharge of day to day affairs, he is vicariously liable for accident that had taken place. He submitted that the order is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the applicant was not even present when the accident had taken place and as such, by no stretch of imagination, the present offences under Section 304-A are attracted in the facts of the present case. 6. Mr. More, learned APP vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that both the Courts below have concurrently held that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and as such no interference is warranted. 7. Section 304-A of the I.P.C. reads thus: 304-A. Causing death by negligence.- Whoever SM 3 12.wp.2377.09 causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amount to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which my extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 8. It is pertinent to note that the incident has taken place on 20 th March, 2004. Immediately, on the same date, the statement of the deceased Pankaj was recorded by the Assistant Police Inspector of Bhoisar police station. In his statement, he has categorically stated that when he had done his work by around 11.00 a.m., he lost his balance and his leg was put on Air Line, due to which, the Pressure Tubes of Air Pipe broken. He has stated that he was making an attempt to repair the Pressure Tubes. Since they were not connected properly, the Valve containing Hot Water Steam opened and that the said Hot Water and Steam caused burn injuries on both of his legs below waste. He has further stated that the injuries were also caused on his right hand. He further stated that immediately after the accident, the manager of the company had taken him to the hospital at Tarapur, wherein he was given primary treatment and thereafter to Masina Hospital at Byculla. 9. The incident has taken place on 20 th March, 2004. The deceased was died on 30 th March, 2004. The F.I.R. was registered by one Pradip Vasant Kasabe, who was Police Sub Inspector at the said police station. In is statement, he has stated that on 8 th July, 2005 one Vikas Ramchandra Pimple had informed him that his cousin Pankaj Gangadhar Pimple had died while working at Lavino Kapur Co.. The SM 4 12.wp.2377.09 F.I.R. is lodged on 23 rd December, 2005. It is difficult to understand as to why from 20 th March, 2004 till 23 rd December, 2005, no F.I.R. was registered. It is further difficult to understand that if the first informant received the information on 8 th July, 2005, why the F.I.R. was not registered for more than five and half months. The perusal of the Charge-sheet would reveal that in all statements that have been recorded, the only role attributed to the present petitioner is that he was the Director of the company, he had neglected in not providing proper training to the trainees. Apart from that, there is no allegation in the F.I.R.. A categorical statement has been made in the memo of the petition that the petitioner was not present when the accident had taken place in the factory. The same is not levied. It is the settled law that unless a statute specifically provides for vicarious liability, a person cannot be prosecuted for an offence committed by some one else by applying the principle of vicarious liability. Undisputedly, Section 304A does not provide for taking action against the present petitioner by principle of vicarious liability. 10. Taking into consideration the statement of the deceased, which specifically states that the accident had occurred due to his own mistake and nobody was responsible for it and further that he was immediately taken for medical treatment firstly at Tarapur and thereafter at Byculla, I do not find that a case is made out to proceed against the present applicant inasmuch no role as to how the act of the present petitioner was either rash or negligent could be seen in the entire SM 5 12.wp.2377.09 Charge-sheet. I find that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner is not in the interest of justice. 11. Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court. The applicant shall stands discharged for the offence. The bail bonds of the applicant, if any, shall also stand charged. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)