[inik'iB" /f^ ^Y ;^ i^^" ^ w ';f-v'~ -^" HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BllASPUR Criminal MiscellaneousPetition No.432 of 2008 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Neeraj Kumar Lukad, S/o Late Shri Kesharima! Luksri, ageci about 41 years, R/o Ratnabandha Chowk, Dhamtari, DisS. Dhamtari (C.G-), Director Devshree Agrotech Private Limited Company, Rice Mill, Arjuni, Thana Arjunl, Dlstt. Dhamtart (C.G.) Vereus 1. State of Chhattlsgarh, through the Disfrict Magistrate; Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) .2. Station House Officer, Polic^ Station Arjuni, Disft. Dhamtari (C.G.) {Petition under Section 482 ofthe Code of Crtminal Procedure.. 1973} Present: Mr. Sunii Sahu, counselfor the petitioner. Mr. Vtnod Tekam, Panet Lawyer for the State/respondents. Sinale Bwich: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Shanna. J ORAL ORDER fPassed on 12th September. 2008) 1. This petition Is for quashment of criminal proceedlng pending before tlre Court of Chief Judiclal Magistrate, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.328/2008 on the ground that for the same offence, Deputy Chief Factory Inspector has flled a complaint before the Judictal Maglstrate, First Ctass, Lafcour Court, Raipur and the same is pendlng In Criminal Case No.779/2008 under the provisions of ^ctlon 7A (2) (c) of the Faetories Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). 2. I have heard leamed counsel forthe parties and perusedthe petition. 3. Mr. Sunil Sahu, leamed counsel for the petitioner, submits that one Antulal, who was working in the rice mill of the petitioner, died on 29-3- 2 ^^s^-Sif / 2008 at about 5.30 a.m. Merg was intimated and after investigatlon, charge sheet has been flled before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari on the ground that the petitioner who is owner & Urector of the rice mill was negtigent towards the safety of the workers of his factory and Antutal died in vlew of his negiigence. In Criminal Case No.779/2008 the Deputy Chief Factory Inspector has flted a complaint against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was required to train the labour and issue suitable directions, make sultabte provfsions for supervision and he shoutd take precautions to save the workers from any accident under Section 7A (2) (c) of the Act, birt he failed to dlscharge the duty as a result of whlch Antulal died. Leamect counsel further submits that the allegations made in Criminal Case Nos.328/2008 & 779/2008 are one and the same. The petitioner is protected from double Jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constltution of India and also under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). He placed reliance in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police CBI/sn" v. Na!int and others1 in which the Apex Court has held that second trlal based on same facts under the TADA Act after trial of offender under Tada Act sdong with offence punlshable under the I.P.C. is barred. He furtha- placed retiance in the matter of Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansarj v. State (W;T of Delhi)2 in which the Apex Court has hetd that after dectaon against the parties on the basis of same facts second trial is barred under Section 300 of the Code. 4. In the present case, the petitioner is faclng trial for offence punishable under Section 304-A of the t.P.C. for causing death by negligent act. 1 AiR 1999 SC 2640 2 (2005)53cc 258 3 Another criminal pro(%eding is pending against the petitioner for not making proper provisions and maintenance of the ptant and system of work in the factory to ensure the health and safety of all workers at work i.e. for violation of Sectron 7A (2) (c) ofthe Act which is punishabte under Section 92 of the Act. Allegation in the first case is causing death by negltgent act, but the allegations in the second case is violating the provlsions meant for safety and protectton of ali workers under Section 7A (2) (c) of the Act. The facts of both the offences.are different and the only similarity is that as a result of the above two cases, Artulat has died. In this case, both the offences are not based on same facts or the facts of both the offences are not constituting the same offence, but ey are distinct In nature and trial of the accused In the above two cases ts not barred under the provisions of Sectton 300 of the Code or tn termsof Article 20 of the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed at the stage <rf admission. t.A. No.1/2008 stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge {:ioma