IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2801 of 2007() ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED -------------------------- KURIAN GEORGE, CHEMPKASSERIL HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O., MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SMT.N.SINDHU RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SAKARIA,S/O. SOWRI, PEREPARAMBIL HOUSE,,MANGANAM PO, MANGANAM KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2801 of 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed to quash Annexure-A1 final report. 2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Annexure-A1 final report. As per the allegations in the charge, a stay wire which was connected to 11 K.V electric line post happened to break, while reclamation of the wet land belonging to A4, the petitioner, was being carried out. The line was sagging and hence accused 1 to 3 were approached with a request to set repair the same. But they did not effect any repair of the stay wire, and CW2 happened to touch the wire and she sustained grievous injuries by electrocution and thereby A1 to A3 committed offence under Section 338 Indian Penal Code and 4th accused committed offence under Section 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short). 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, a tipper lorry had caused damage to the stay wire while the reclamation work was Crl.M.C.No.2801 of 2007 2 being carried out in the petitioner's property. But the driver of the tipper lorry was not made an accused. Petitioner has no vicarious liability under the provisions of the Act and hence he cannot be proceeded against for the offence alleged, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides and on going through the charge-sheet and FIR, it is clear that no allegation is made against 4th accused that he has damaged the stay wire. There is no allegation that he, in any manner, negligently broken or damaged any material connected with the supply of electricity. It is only alleged that the stay wire which was situated in the property of petitioner happened to break. The charge-sheet was laid on 30.3.2005 and the date of offence is 4.5.2004 and hence Section 139 of Electricity Act, 2003 as amended w.e.f. 27.1.2004 by Act 57/2003, is applicable in this case. As per the said Section, a person will be liable under the said Section, if he negligently breaks, injures, throws down or damages any material connected with the supply of electricity. There is absolutely Crl.M.C.No.2801 of 2007 3 no whisper in the charge-sheet that the petitioner has negligently broken or damaged etc. any material connected with the supply of electricity. Therefore, the allegation in the charge will not constitute an offence punishable under Section 139 of the Act and the charge is liable to be quashed with respect to the petitioner . 5. Hence the following order is passed: 1) Annexure-A1 charge in so far as it relates to petitioner is hereby quashed. 2) Petitioner shall not be proceeded on the basis of Annexure-A1. Petition is allowed. K.Hema, Judge cms