IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3103 of 2011() ------------------------------ CC.75/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONERS/A4 TO A7,A9 & 10 --------------------------------------- 1. SAHADEVAN, AGED 58 YEARS,S/O.ARUMUKHAN, KIZHAKKEKKALAM, KANNAMBRA.P.O. 2. K.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU, MADATHIPARAMBU VEEDU, PUTHOORKALAM, P.O.PANNIYANKARA, PALAKKAD. 3. C.G.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, MANNATHUPARAMBU, KANNAMBRA.P.O. 4. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.SETHUMADHAVAKURUP, KUNNUMPULLY VEEDU, KALLERI, KANNAMBRA.P.O. 5. C.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.CHATHUNNI, ASWIN NIVAS, KANNAMBRA.P.O. 6. P.K.HARIDASAN, AGED 61 YEARS,S/O.KELAL PAZHANI MASTER, PARAKKAL VEEDU, KANNAMBRA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNITHA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.CHANDRAN, THEKKETHARA, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD. 678 686. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION.678 001. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO. 3103/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE POLICY NO.761100/36/09/37/0000003856 DATED 18/05/2009. ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.D3-2009/22772/9 DATED 21/05/2009 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE C:COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO.D3-2009/22772/9 DATED 21/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. ANNEXURE D:COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR. NO.259/2009 DATED 24/05/2009. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3103 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are A4 to A7, A9 and A10 in C.C.No.75/2010 pending before JFCM, Alathur. The person who was arrayed as A8 was reported to be dead. The offences alleged against these petitioners are under Secs.286, 337 and 338 r/w 34 IPC and also under Sec.5 r/w 8(1) of Explosives Act, 1884. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sec.5 and 8(1) of the Explosives Act are not penal sections. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are only members of the Festival Committee of Sreekurumba Bhagavathy Temple. While conducting fire works on 24.5.2009 at 6.40 PM, one dynamite deviated from its direction and exploded in the midst of spectators enjoying the fire works on the eastern part of the temple, as a result of which CW2 and other sustained injuries. The learned counsel for the Crl.M.C. No.3103 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioners submits that A1 was the licensee who as per the contract was to perform/conducting the fire works. A2 and A3 are the employees of A1. The required licence and permits were obtained by the authorities concerned. Annexure B is the permit and Annexure C is the NOC. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that even according to the prosecution, the fire works was conducted at 200 metres away from the place where the people were allowed to gather. It is further submitted that one dynamite/cracker (fire work) went and hit a tree and thus caused deviation in its direction and unfortunately it fell on some of the persons who were standing by the side of the road which itself was about 200 metres away. It is not necessary to consider those aspects now. 2. The main point that is canvassed by the learned counsel is that petitioners are only members of the Festival Committee and there was no negligence on their part in the conduct of the fire works which was only to be done by A1 Crl.M.C. No.3103 of 2011 -: 3 :- with the help of A2 and A3. Now the learned counsel submits that there can be no vicarious liability to implicate the petitioners in a criminal case so as to hold them guilty. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the petitioners are seen implicated only on the ground that they are members of the Festival Committee. There is no material to show that these petitioners were negligent or contributed any in-manner for the explosion of the cracker/dynamite. So much so, the prosecution as against these petitioners cannot be sustained. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Further proceeding as against these petitioners alone in C.C.No.75/2010 on the file of J.F.C.M., Alathur is set aside. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt