‘90)(601 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ., Cr. M.P. No. 498/2008 ' PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Pmsent:- shn' Mamndm smivastava, Sr. Advocate with 31m- Goutam “ , Shri Rajendra ’I‘xipathi, P.L. for the State/mspondent. \$ Khetrapal, Advocate for the patiu'onem. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 1 1I09i2009) amrming the order allowing the application $cd under Section 319 - of the Code by the pmsccution dated 29/ 9/ 06 in eliminal case No. 714/96 whereby learned Judicial Magistmte First Class has pETITmNER 1. Ramavtar Agmwal, S/o Agrawal, aged about 52 years, Bhaiyathan, Suzajphr, Tahsil Sumjpur, Distn'ct Sarguja (ecu, at ‘Vaishali Nagar, Bilaspur, ’l‘ahsil District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. (C.G.). Bajrang Lal Agawal, S/o Agrawal, aged about 52 years, Bhajyathvan, Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distn'ct Sarguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT T State of Chhattisgarh, Thmugh Police Station-Surajpur, District Sarguja lapse of mom than 10 years and issued notice for impleading the petitioners as a accused in connection with the oEence punishable > under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code on the gmund that accused pexsons had installed unsafe Wile resulted into the death - of Manknnwar. Order is challenged on the gound that/without any prima facie evidence against the petitionets courts below has allowed the application filed under Section 319 of the Code and thereby committed an illegality. Short facts giving rise to this petition is, petitioner No. 1 Ramavtar Agrawal has applied for temporaxy connection to the C.S.E.B. in the year 1996 and temporaiy connection was given at the instance of Ramavtar Agawal. Meter was installed on the electric pole and live electric wire was installed hum the electric pole to the working place of the petitioners. Deceased Manklmwar died by the electric current as a result of such installation of damaged line nom electric pole to the working place‘of the petitioners. Matter was reported and charge sheet was tiled against one K.K. Yadavr employee of Electricity Department. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Application against pr€Sent petitioners were med under Section 319 of the Code for impleading the accused on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court same was allowed. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Goutam ‘ Khetrapal, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. for the State] respondent are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in the year 1996 after accident matter was investigated by the police and charge sheet was med only against the employee of Electn'city Department and not against the present peu'tioners because the Wire was installed by the Electn'city Department and not by the petitioners therefore petitioners were not lesponsible for any negligent. Lealned counsel for the petitioners further argued that although Court has ample power to implead the persons during the comse of trial on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecu1ion in accordance with Section 319 of the Code but court v was mquired to see that power under Section 319 of the Code should only be invoked where it is imperative to meets the ends of justice and it should not be exercise only on the superhcial evidence. Evidence must be substandve in nature and at the time of impleading the accused courts is also required to see the quality of the evidence Learned counsel for the petitioners placed mliance in the matter of Btindaban Das and Others v. state of West Ben“ reported in £2009) 3 8C0 329 in which Apex Court has held that the Court is required to evaluate the material and only the power under Section 319 of the Code should be invoked where it is imperative to meet V 'ends of justice for exercising the power under Section 319 ofrthe’ Code prosecution is required to adduce substantive evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the petih'on and submits that on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution the Court below has rightly impleaded the petitioners as accused and has not committed any illegality. In the present case, admittedly vpmsecution has not filed any charge sheet against these petitioners on the basis of statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code which mveals that live electric line was installed at the instance of petitioner No. 1 fmm electric pole to his working place. The consideration ‘for impleading the persons as accused on the basis of application Eed‘ under Section 319 of the Code is din'erent hom the «considexation for} taking cognizance on the basis of charge sheet or on the basis of complaint because at the time of impleading pexsons as a accused under Secu'on 319 of the Code the evidence having its evidenceaiy value are available before the Court for consideration and only doubt or suspicion or prima facie material is not sumcient for exercising the power under Section 319 of the Code. 10. In the presentcase the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code reveals that petitioner No. 1 has installed live damage electric wire negligently along with one Sub Engineer of the Electricity Department resulted into accident causing death of Manknnwar. The prosecution has examined Dwarika Prasad, Khulnram, Mahajanram, Basantlal, Parasram, Subhash Chandra. Witnesses Khuluram, Mahajanram have specincally deposed that Ramavtar Agrawal has installed the live unsafe electric line witness Dwarika Prasad has deposed that Ramavtar Agrawal was constructing house and he had installed the line. Witness Subhash Chandra has also deposed that temporary Wire was installed by the Ramavtar Agrawal. Witness, Basantlal has deposed that Bajrang Lal Agrawal and Ramavtar Agrawal are brother and were supervising the work of plant where electric line was installed and unsafe damage electric Wire has been used for elactric supply. Statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code and statement of the Witnesses reoonied dun'ng the tn‘al reveals that peu'tionem are persons who installed the unsafe and damage live elecin‘c Wire kom the electric pole to place of consiruction. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is substantial in nature and ’swcient for pmceeding under Section 319 of the Code against the petitionets. As held in case of Brindaban Das and 0th”: Mr only in case if it is imperative to meet the ends of justice for exercising the power under Section 319 of the Code the Court may invoke such power. In the present case the exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code is imperative to meet the ends ofjustice.’ Court below has rightly impleading the petitioners as a accused, I do not find any illegality or inmmity 1n the: order impugned warranting any interference in terms of Section 482 of the Code. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. T. P. Sharma ‘ Judge H